WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY VOLUME 6B Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 DUANE L. CHRISTENSEN

General Editors Bruce M. Metzger David A. Hubbard† Glenn W. Barker† Old Testament Editor John D. W. Watts New Testament Editor Ralph P. Martin

WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER • DALLAS, TEXAS

Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Nelson, inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Main entry under title: Word biblical commentary. Includes bibliographies. 1. Bible—Commentaries—Collected works. BS491.2.W67 220.7ʹ7 81-71768 ISBN 0-8499-1032-3 (v. 6B) AACR2 Scripture quotations in the body of the commentary, unless otherwise indicated, are from the of the Bible, copyright 1946 (renewed 1973), 1956, and © 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA and are used by permission. The author’s own translation of the text appears in italic type under the heading Translation.

To Casper J. Labuschagne, , ס וֹ פֵ ר colleague, friend, and modern for his work on the numerical composition of the Bible

Table of Contents

Editorial Preface Author’s Preface Abbreviations

MAIN BIBLIOGRAPHY Chronological Bibliography of Commentaries on Deuteronomy Monographs and Selected Books on Deuteronomy Festschriften (with significant articles on Deuteronomy) INTRODUCTION Text and Versions of Deuteronomy Review of Critical Research Detailed Outline of Deuteronomy EXCURSUSES Law, Poetry, and Music in Ancient Israel Deuteronomy in the Canonical Process The Triennial Cycle of Readings in Palestinian Judaism The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition Travel Notices in Deut 1–3 and 31–34 Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel

TEXT AND COMMENTARY READING 1: The Eisodus into the Promised Land under (1:1–3:22) A. Summons to Enter the Promised Land (1:1–8) B. Organization of the People for Life in the Land (1:9–18) C. Israel’s Unholy War (1:19–2:1) D. The March of Conquest from Mount Seir to the Promised Land (2:2–25) E. YHWH’s Holy War—Conquest of Sihon and Og in Transjordan (2:26–3:11) F. Distribution of the Land in Transjordan (3:12–17) G. Summons to Take Possession of the Promised Land (3:18–22) READING 2: The Essence of the Covenant—Moses and the Ten Words (3:23–7:11) A. Transition from Moses to : “Crossing Over” (3:23–29) B. Exhortation to Keep the Torah—Focus on the First Two Commandments (4:1–40) 1. Israel’s Relationship with YHWH (4:1–10) 2. Israel Is to Worship the Creator—Not Created images (4:11–24) 3. The Mighty Acts of God in Israel’s Behalf (4:25–40) C. Transition and Introduction to the Ten Words of the Torah (4:41–49) 1. Moses Set Apart Three Cities of Refuge (4:41–43) 2. This Is the Torah—Recapitulation of 1:1–5 (4:44–49) D. Theophany and Covenant at Horeb—Giving of the Ten Words (5:1–22) 1. The First Three Commandments—Our Relationship to God (5:1–11) 2. The Fourth Commandment—Observing the Sabbath (5:12–15) 3. The Fifth through the Tenth Commandments—Our Relationship to Others (5:16–21) 4. YHWH’s Theophany and Covenant (5:22) E. God’s Desire Is for Us to Fear Him by Keeping the Torah (5:23–6:3) F. Sermonic Elaboration of the First Commandments (6:4–25) 1. The Great Commandment Is to Love God (6:4–9) 2–3. When You Enter the Land, Fear YHWH and Do Not Worship Other Gods (6:10–15) 4–7. Be Careful to Keep the Commandments (6:16–25) G. They Practice Holiness in the Land by Keeping the Torah (7:1–11)

READING 3: Life in the Promised Land—The Great Peroration (7:12–11:25) A. You Will Be Blessed above All the Peoples If You Obey (7:12–26) B. Remember the Lessons from the Wanderings in the Wilderness (8:1–20) C. Hear, O Israel, You Are about to Cross the Jordan (9:1–29) 1. The First Three Units (9:1–7) 2. Units Four Through Ten (9:8–29) D. At That Time YHWH Spoke the Ten Words (10:1–7) E. At That Time YHWH Set Apart the Tribe of Levi (10:8–11) F. Love God and Remember What He Did for You in the Wilderness (10:12–11:9) G. If You Love God, You Will Possess the Promised Land (11:10–25)

READING 4: Laws on Human Affairs in Relation to God (11:26–16:17) A. Covenant Renewal under Moses in and Joshua at Shechem (11:26–32) B. Laws That Ensure Exclusive Worship of YHWH—No Idolatry (12:1–13:19 [Eng. 18]) 1. Destroy Pagan Shrines and Worship YHWH Alone (12:1–7) 2. Worship YHWH with Your Offerings at the Central Sanctuary (12:8–12) 3. Sacred and Secular Slaughter in Ancient Israel (12:13–28) 4. Shun Canaanite Religious Practices (12:29–13:1 [Eng. 12:29–32]) 5. Idolatry Is a Capital Offense, So Purge the Evil from Your Midst (13:2–19 [Eng. 13:1– 18]) a. Idolatry Instigated by a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams (13:2–6 [Eng. 1–5]) b. Idolatry Instigated by a Close Relative or Dear Friend (13:7–12 [Eng. 6–11]) c. Idolatry in Which an Entire Town Is Subverted (13:13–19 [Eng. 12–18]) C. Laws of Holiness in Matters of Daily Life (14:1–21) D. Periodic Measures to Provide for the Poor—Social Ethics (14:22–15:23) 1. The Annual and Triennial (14:22–29) 2. Protection of the Poor (15:1–11) 3. Manumission of Indentured Servants in the Seventh Year (15:12–18) 4. Sacrifice of Livestock (15:19–23) E. The Pilgrimage Festivals (16:1–17) 1. The Passover Sacrifice and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (16:1–8) 2. The Festival of Weeks (16:9–12) 3–4. The Festival of Booths and Summary (16:13–17)

READING 5: Laws on Leadership and Authority in Ancient Israel (16:18–21:9) A. Laws on Justice and Forbidden Worship Practices (16:18–17:13) 1. Appointment of Judges and Forbidden Worship Practices (16:18–17:1) 2. Law on Idolatry within the Gates of Local Towns in the Land (17:2–7) 3. Law of the Central Tribunal—A Court of Referral (17:8–13) B. Law of the King (17:14–20) C. Law of the Levitical Priests (18:1–8) D. Law of the Prophets (18:9–22) E. Laws concerning the Courts—Judicial and Military Matters (19:1–21:9) 1. Cities of Asylum—Laws on Manslaughter and Murder (19:1–13) 2. Laws on Encroachment and Witnesses in Court (19:14–21) 3. Intentional Killing—Warfare and Military Deferments (20:1–20) a. Preparing the Army for Battle (20:1–9) b. Behavior during a Siege in Holy War (20:10–20) 4. Law on Unsolved Murder—Role of Elders and Judges (21:1–9)

READING 6: Forty-three Laws on Human Affairs in Relation to Others (21:10–25:19) A. Three Laws on Marriage and Family (21:10–21) 1. Marriage with a Woman Captured in War (21:10–14) 2. Right of the Firstborn Son in a Polygamous Family (21:15–17) 3. The Punishment of an Insubordinate Son (21:18–21) B. Ten Laws on “True Religion” and Illicit Mixtures (21:22–22:12) 1. Treatment of the Body of an Executed Criminal (21:22–23) 2. Three Laws on “True Religion”—Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself (22:1–5) 3. Not Capturing a Mother Bird along with Her Young (22:6–7) 4. Five Laws on “True Religion” and Illicit Mixtures (22:8–12) C. Seven Laws on Marriage and Sexual Misconduct (22:13–23:1 [Eng. 22:30]) 1. Two Laws on Premarital Unchastity (22:13–21) 2. Two Laws on Adultery (22:22–24) 3. Two Laws on Rape (22:25–29) 4. Prohibition of Marrying One’s Father’s Wife (23:1 [Eng. 22:30]) D. Seven Laws on “True Religion” (23:1–26 [Eng. 22:30–23:25]) 1. Admission to the Assembly of YHWH (23:1–9 [Eng. 22:30–23:8]) 2. Sanctity of the Military Camp (23:10–15 [Eng. 9–14]) 3. Two Laws on “True Religion” (23:16–19 [Eng. 15–18]) 4. Three More Laws on “True Religion” (23:20–26 [Eng. 19–25]) E. Sixteen Laws on Marriage, War, and “True Religion” (24:1–25:19) 1–2. Forbidden Remarriage and Military Deferral of a New Husband (24:1–5) 3–4. Taking a Millstone in Pledge and Theft of a Fellow Israelite (24:6–7) 5. Dealing with “Leprosy” (24:8–9) 6. Taking and Holding Distrained Property (24:10–13) 7. Mistreatment of a Hired Servant—Timely Payment of Wages Due (24:14–15) 8. Transgenerational Punishment Forbidden (24:16) 9–10. Taking a Widow’s Garment in Pledge and Gleanings for the Poor (24:17–22) 11–12. Limits on Flogging and Not Muzzling the Ox (25:1–4) 13. Levirate Marriage (25:5–10) 14. Improper Intervention in a Fight (25:11–13) 15. Honest Weights and Measures (25:13–16) 16. Remember to Hate the Amalekites (25:17–19) READING 7: Public Worship and Covenant Renewal (26:1–29:8 [Eng. 9]) A. Preview: Two Liturgies for Worship in the Promised Land (26:1–15) 1. Liturgy of Firstfruits at the Central Sanctuary (26:1–11) 2. Declaration of the Triennial (26:12–15) B. Mutual Commitments between God and Israel in Covenant Renewal (26:16–19) C. Writing the Torah on Stones and Covenant Renewal at Shechem (27:1–26) 1. Shechem Ceremony Dramatizing Israel’s Covenant Responsibilities (27:1–10) 2. Positioning of the Tribes at Shechem and a Litany of Curses (27:11–26) D. If You Keep Covenant (28:1–69 [Eng. 28:1–29:1]) 1. Blessings for Obedience and Curses for Disobedience (28:1–19) 2. Expanded Description of Future Disaster (28:20–69 [Eng. 29:1]) a–b. First and Second Expansions of the Covenant Curses (28:20–44) c. Third Expansion: Utter Privation in Siege Warfare (28:45–57) d. The Complete Reversal of Israel’s History (28:58–68) e. Summation: “These Are the Words of the Covenant” (28:69 [Eng. 29:1]) E. Remembering the Past: The Magnalia Dei (29:1–8 [Eng. 2–9])

READING 8: Appeal for Covenant Loyalty (29:9–30:20 [Eng. 29:10–30:20]) A. The Covenant Is Binding on Future Generations Too (29:9–14 [Eng. 10–15]) B. Those with Reservations about Keeping the Covenant Are Warned (29:15–20 [Eng. 16–21]) C. Exile from the Land Foretold for Breaking the Covenant (29:21–27 [Eng. 22–28]) D. Secret and Revealed Things: “Do All the Words of This Torah!” (29:28 [Eng. 29]) E. Possibility of Restoration: When You Return, God Will Return (30:1–10) F. God’s Commandments Are Doable (30:11–14) G. The Choice before You Is between Life and Death—Choose Life (30:15–20)

READING 9–11: Anticipating the Eisodus into the Promised Land under Joshua (31:1– 34:12) READING 9: From Moses to Joshua—Moses Prepares to Die (31:1–30) A. Moses’ Final Provisions in View of His Impending Death (31:1–13) 1. Moses Hands over Leadership to Joshua as His Successor (31:1–8) 2. Moses Deposits the Torah for Recitation at the Festival of Booths (31:9–13) B. YHWH’s Charge to Moses and Joshua in the Tent of Meeting (31:14–23) 1. Theophany in the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Joshua (31:14–15) 2. Israel’s Future Apostasy and Its Consequences (31:16–18) 3–4. God Commands Moses to Write the Song, and God Commissions Joshua (31:19–23) C. Moses’ Provisions regarding the Torah and the Song (31:24–30)

READING 10: The within Its Narrative Framework (32:1–52) A. The Song of Moses (32:1–43) 1. First Cycle: God’s Blessing of Israel in Times Past (32:1–14) 2. Second Cycle: Israel’s Sin Provokes God’s Anger (32:15–29) 3. Third Cycle: God’s Punishment and Salvation (32:30–43) B. Moses’ Final Charge to “All Israel” (32:44–47) C. YHWH’s Command to Moses to Climb Mount Nebo to “See” the Land (32:48–52)

READING 11: Moses’ Blessing, Death, Funeral, and Necrology (33:1–34:12) A. First Stanza of an Ancient Hymn: YHWH’s Protection and Provision (33:1–5) B. Moses’ Testamentary Blessing on the Twelve Tribes (33:6–25) C. Second Stanza of an Ancient Hymn: Israel’s Security and Blessing (33:26–29) D. Death of Moses and Transfer of Leadership to Joshua (34:1–12) Indexes

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography andForm/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. General Editors: David A. Hubbard Glenn W. Barker Old Testament: John D. W. Watts New Testament: Ralph P. Martin Author’s Preface

I am grateful to the publisher and editors of the Word Biblical Commentary for the decision to use this occasion to revise Volume 6A (Deut 1–11) and to publish the commentary in two volumes of equal length: Volume 6A (Deut 1:1–21:9) and Volume 6B (Deut 21:10–34:12). A special note of appreciation is expressed to Dr. John D. W. Watts, whose gentle but firm insistence and encouragement got me through difficult days in the process of completing this commentary, and to Dr. James W. Watts for his editorial assistance in the final stages of getting this manuscript ready for the copyediting process. His suggestions did much to improve the format and content of this book at numerous points. The outline for the entire commentary appears at the end of the Introduction in order to give the reader a clearer idea of the structure of the whole, which is arranged according to the eleven traditional lectionary readings (“weekly portions”) of Jewish worship practice through the centuries. In the preface to the first edition of Volume 6A in the Word Biblical Commentary (1991), I mentioned that my research for writing this commentary on the forced me to rethink a number of presuppositions in my approach to understanding the Bible in the world of academia. The necessary process of growth and change led me down unfamiliar and lonely paths, as I made the choice to go with what I observed in the biblical text whether or not it fit comfortably within the established boundaries of what my teachers had taught me in my graduate studies, or what my colleagues in the study of this pivotal book were saying. As a result, I found myself doing something a bit different with Deuteronomy. Though I already knew that the accentual system of notation in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy reflected some kind of musical performance of the text in antiquity and that the entire system of notation in the Masoretic tradition is remarkably well preserved, it was not until I got deeply into chaps.21–25 that the details of that system became increasingly clear. It was the shorter passages in that section of the laws of Deuteronomy, the frequent use of the sĕtûmāʾ and pĕtûḥāʾ layout markers, and the systematic use of the so-called Numeruswechsel (change back and forth between second person singular and plural pronouns) that finally enabled me to see what was going on from a prosodic-textual point of view. This in turn led to the discovery that the traditional lectionary cycle of “weekly portions”of readings from the book of Deuteronomy, as conveyed in the marginal notes of the text in various Jewish editions of the , in fact represents primary structural features for understanding the architectual design of the whole, something I did not know when the previous volume was published. In this commentary, I have followed closely the system of notation in the marginal notes of The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). I am grateful to Professor Casper Labuschagne for the gift some years ago of a bound photocopy of the earlier facsimile edition of the book of Deuteronomy taken from this important manuscript, which he had obtained from the late Professor Claus Schedl. When I worked through Calum Carmichael’s book, Law and Narrative in the Bible (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985), I found the key to unlock another door to new discoveries. Carmichael’s work has played a significant role in shaping this commentary, though in a manner different from what he intended. His demonstration of the relationship between the laws of Deuteronomy and the narrative elsewhere in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets is accepted, but the direction of that influence appears to be the reverse of what Carmichael has found. Following the suggestions of his teacher David Daube, Carmichael argues that the laws of Deuteronomy have the character of “legal abstracts” derived from earlier narrative tradition that is preserved in the Torah and the Former Prophets. I take the direction of influence (from law to narratives) in precisely the opposite direction. The laws are primary, and are used to shape the narratives in question, as is most clearly seen in the law on distrained property in Deut 24:10–13. In short, the book of Deuteronomy illustrates in principle the subsequent midrashic approach to Scripture. The primary sacred text on which the book is based is the , which are expanded in midrashic fashion to form the laws of Deut 12–25. These laws in turn are expanded in a similar manner in narrative form thoughout what D. N. Freedman has called “The Primary History” (Genesis through 2 Kings in the Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Torah plus the Former Prophets within the Hebrew canon). Four recent commentaries on Deuteronomy merit special attention here. The first volume of Moshe Weinfeld’s commentary, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday; 1991), appeared at the same time as my earlier volume of the same title in the Word Biblical Commentary. Weinfeld’s commentary was particularly useful in updating the “List of Qumran Evidence Relating to Deuteronomy” below. Georg Braulik’s commentary in Die Neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter) is now complete: Deuteronomium 1–16, 17 (1986) and Deuteronomium 16, 18–34, 12 (1992). Though this work is intended primarily to expound the value of Deuteronomy for the church today, it remains an eminently useful reference tool for the scholar as well, particularly in the conciseness and clarity of thought in the organization of material throughout. Jeffrey Tigay’s book, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), has proved invaluable as a point of reference in my own work. The fourth commentary of note is the monumental effort of Casper J. Labuschagne, De Prediking van het Oude Testament: Deuteronomium (Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G. F. Callenbach, 1990–97), which is now complete in four volumes. My limited understanding of the Dutch language has made it difficult to incorporate here the substance of this work, which sheds much light on the more recent stages of the canonical process in ancient Israel, in which the book of Deuteronomy played a central role. An English abridgment of Labuschagne’s work would be most useful to students of Deuteronomy. As I worked my way through Deuteronomy, I became increasingly familiar with Labuschagne’s method (Logotechnische analyse) and its value. For more information on this, seeExcursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition.” I have attempted to incorporate Labuschagne’s findings throughout the commentary at the end of the sections on Form/Structure/Setting. Another work of importance in the writing of this commentary is the new translation of the Pentateuch by Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses,Schocken Bible 1 (New York: Schocken, 1997). Fox’s approach to the text of the Hebrew Bible has much in common with my own. As he put it, “I have sought here primarily to echo the style of the original, believing that the Bible is best approached, at least at the beginning, on its own terms. So I have presented the text in English dress but with a Hebraic voice” (p. ix). That is my own goal as well. My book, Bible 101: God’s Story in Human History (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996), needed to be written before I was able to complete this commentary. This book approaches the study of the Bible from the perspective of the canonical process in ancient Israel and early Christianity and of the principle of intertextuality. It explores the formation of the entire canon of sacred Scripture as a very human process that was ultimately overseen by the Spirit of God. Patterns of symmetry are unfolded and substantiated in an introduction to the Bible that attempts to engage the reader at the experiential level and illuminate the mystery of God’s revelation. My most recent book, The Completed Tanakh: The Canonical Process in Ancient Israel and Early Christianity (Columbus, GA: Christian Life Publications, 2000), carries this discussion much further. In addition to these two textbooks, I have written a series of study guides for the BIBAL Study Program: Bible 101: The Torah; Bible 102: The Former Prophets; Bible 103: The Latter Prophets; Bible 104: The Hebrew Writings; Bible 105: Apostolic Writings I—The Four Gospels and the Book of Acts; and Bible 106: Apostolic Writings II—New Testament Epistles and the Revelation to John (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996–2000). The process of writing these books sharpened my awareness of the concentric structural design of the Bible at all levels, enabling me to develop a systematic methodological approach to the analysis of the biblical text, which is evident in the Form/Structure/Setting sections throughout the whole of this commentary. The process led to an understanding of the macrostructure of the book of Deuteronomy that moves well beyond where I was at the time when the first edition of Volume 6A of this commentary was published (1991). The fundamental building block in the canonical process is a simple chiasm with a structural center, in the pattern a-b-x-b’-a’. In the book of Deuteronomy, this structure is often expanded by adding an additional frame to form what C. J. Labuschagne has appropriately called a “menorah pattern” (a seven-part concentric structure: a-b-c-x-cʹ- bʹ-aʹ). In the first edition of Volume 6A, three different fonts were used in the English translation of Deuteronomy in an attempt to convey certain information that is easily observed in the Hebrew text but not easy to convey in English. That system is simplified here to the use of two different fonts in order to convey at a glance the phenomenon called the Numeruswechsel—the frequent change in the use of the second- person singular and plural forms in verbs and pronominal suffixes. Since modern English makes no distinction between the singular and plural in the second person, there is no simple way to mark the changes in translation. Moreover, since the changes have no obvious effect on the meaning of the text, the matter is usually ignored by commentators as well. A regular font is used wherever the text has second-person plural forms, until a change to second-person singular forms is encountered. At that point, the font is changed to italic and continues in that font until a form using the second-person plural form is encountered. It will be observed that most of these changes (i.e., the Numeruswechsel) appear at boundaries of prosodic units within the book of Deuteronomy, and occasionally in the center of such units. In short, the Numeruswechsel is an auditory signal of internal structure—used to convey information about the structure of the book to those who heard the book recited in antiquity. They would have picked up these changes as readily as we note incorrect grammatical usage today. I would also take this opportunity to call the reader’s attention to some of the volumes in the Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament (SBAB) that make the published works of Georg Braulik and Norbert Lohfink more accessible (see vols. 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 by Lohfink and vols. 2 and 24 by Braulik).

DUANE L. CHRISTENSEN Rodeo, California October 2001 Abbreviations

PERIODICALS, SERIALS, AND REFERENCE WORKS AAAS Annales archéologiques arabes de Syrie AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AB Anchor Bible ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) AbLA M. Noth, Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes-und Altertumskunde, ed. H. W. Wolff (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) ABR Australian Biblical Review AcOr Acta orientalia, Leiden ActOr Acta Orientalia, Copenhagen AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AfOBei Beihefte zur Archiv für Orientforschung ÄgAT Ägypten und Altes Testament AHDO Archiv d’histoire du droit oriental AION Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AJP American Journal of Philology AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review AJT American Journal of Theology ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums ALUOS Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society AnBib Analecta biblica ANEP J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969) ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969) AngTR Anglican Theological Review AnOr Analecta orientalia ANQ Andover Newton Quarterly AnSt Anatolian Studies AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AOT H. Gressman (ed.), Altorientalische Texte und Bilder ArOr Archiv orientální ARw Archiv für Religionswissenschaft AS Assyriological Studies AsSeign Assemblées du Seigneur ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute AsTJ Asbury Theological Journal ATAbh Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen ATANT Abhandlung zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch ATDan Acta theologica Danica ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Aug Augustinianum (Rome) AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AVTRW Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft AzT Arbeiten zur Theologie BA Biblical Archaeologist BARev Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BAT Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments BB Biblische Beiträge (Fribourg) BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBC Broadman Bible Commentary BCPE Bulletin du Centre protestant d’études BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) BDBAT Beiheft Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament BeO Bibbia e oriente BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese BHH B. Reicke and L. Rost (eds.), Biblisch-historisches Hand-wörterbuch, 3 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–66) BHK R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica BHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibBh Bible Bhashyam BibIll Biblical Illustrator BibOr Biblica et orientalia BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot) BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BJS Brown Judaic Studies BK Bibel und Kirche BLit Bibel und Liturgie BMS BIBAL Monograph Series BMik Beth Mikra BN Biblische Notizen BO Bibliotheca Orientalis (Leiden) BOr Beiträge zur Orientalistik BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament BR Biblical Research BRev Bible Review BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BWA(N)T Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique CBC Cambridge Biblical Commentary CBib The Cambridge Bible CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly ChrJRel Christian and Jewish Relations ChW Christliche Welt CJ Concordia Journal CMHE F. M. Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1973) ColT Collectanea Theologica ConB Coniectanea biblica ConBas Concilium Baseliense Conc Concilium ConsJud Conservative Judaism CP Classical Philology CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium CT Christianity Today CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques, 2 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963) CThM Calwer theologische Monographien CTM Concordia Theological Monthly CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly CV Communio viatorum DA Dissertation Abstracts DD Dor le Dor DDS M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) Dils Dine Israel DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert EAEHL M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern (eds.), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4 vols. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975–78) EchB Echter Bibel Ecout Bib Écouter la Bible EglT Eglise et Théologie EHS Europäische Hochschulschriften EI Ereṣ Israel EM ʾEntsiklopedyah Miqraʾit (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950–88) EncBrit Encylcopaedia Brittanica EncBib T. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica, 4 vols. (New York Macmillan, 1899–1903) EncBT J. B. Bauer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology (1970) EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem; New York: Keter, 1971–72) EphC Ephemerides Carmeliticae ErFor Erträge der Forschung EstBib Estudios bíblicos EstEcl Estudios Eclesiásticos ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses ETR Etudes théologiques et religieuses ETS Erfurter theologische Studien EvQ Evangelical Quarterly EvT Evangelische Theologie ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FB Forschung zur Bibel (Echter) FBM E. Fox, The Five Books of Moses, Schocken Bible (New York: Schocken, 1997) FolOr Folia Orientalia FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FZPhTh Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie GeistLeb Geist und Leben (Würzburg) GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) GLECS Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d’études chamitosémitiques GOST Glasgow Oriental Society Transactions GSAT Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (G. von Rad, TBü 8 [1965] and 48 [1973]; M. Noth, TBü 6 [1966] and 39 [1969] [Munich: Kaiser]) GTA Göttinger theologische Arbeiten HAL W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, rev. 3rd ed. of KB (Leiden: Brill, 1967) HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HBS Herders biblische studien HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hen Henoch Herm Hermathena HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HOTTP D. Barthélemy et al. (eds.), Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: 1. Pentateuch, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1979) HR History of Religions HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HS Hebrew Studies HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IB Interpreter’s Bible IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) IBS Irish Biblical Studies ICC International Critical Commentary IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abindgon, 1962) IDBSup K. Crim (ed.), Supplementary Volume to IDB (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IKZ Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift ILR Israel Law Review Int Interpretation IntDialZ Internationale dialog Zeitschrift IOS Israel Oriental Studies, Tel Aviv University IOSOT International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament ISBE G. W. Bromiley (ed.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88) JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JANESCU The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JAOSSup Supplement to JAOS JBC R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series JBR Journal of Bible and Religion JBTh Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie (Neukirchener Verlag) JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JewEnc I. Singer (ed.), Jewish Encyclopaedia, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1916) JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JLA Jewish Annual Law JLASup Jewish Law Annual Supplement JLH Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPS Jewish Publication Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup JSOT Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Jud Judaica: Beiträge zum Verständnis … KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament KatBl Katechetische Blätter KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1958) KD Kerygma und Dogma KeH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament KlSchr Kleine Schriften (A. Alt, 3 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1953–59]; O. Eissfeldt, 6 vols. [Tübingen: Mohr, 1962–79]) KT Kaiser Traktate Kul Kirche und Israel LAD Logotechnische analyse bij Deuteronomiu (4 parts): published as inserts to C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (1987–97) Lat Lateranum LB Linguistica Biblica LBC The Layman’s Bible Commentary LD Lectio divina Leš Lešonénu LNB C. Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985) LQ Lutheran Quarterly LS Legendiger Seelsorge LSSt Leipziger semitistische Studien LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal LV Lumìere et Vie MANE Monographs on the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill) MBPR Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte MDB Le monde de la Bible MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums MHUC Monographs of the Hebrew Union College MThS Münchener theologische Studien MThSt Marburger theologische Studien MTZ Münchener theologische Zeitschrift Mus Le Muséon MVAG Mittelungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft NAWG Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NEchB Neue Echter Bibel NedTTs Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift NGTT Nederduitse gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements NRT La nouvelle revue théologique NThS Nieuwe theologische Studien NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary OLP Orientalia lovaniensia periodica OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung Or Orientalia (Rome) OrAnt Oriens antiquus OTL Old Testament Library OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën OTWSA Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Pretoria) PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research PalCl Palestra del Clero ParVi Parole di Vita PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologia graeca PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PJ Palästina-Jahrbuch PL J.-P. Migne, Patrologia latina POS Pretoria Oriental Series POT De Prediking van het Oude Testament POTT D. J. Wiseman (ed.), People of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies PRU Le Palais royal d’Ugarit PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1893–1972) QD Quaestiones disputatae RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RAI Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale RB Revue biblique RBiblt Rivista Biblica Italiana (Brescia) RechBib Recherches bibliques ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevExp Review and Expositor RevistB Revista bíblica RevQ Revue de Qumran RGG K. Galling (ed.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., 7 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1957–65) RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RIDA Revue Internationale des droites de l’antiquité RivB Rivista biblica RMP Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RRel Review for Religious RSEHA Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne RSJB Recueils de la société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions RSO Revista degli studi orientali RSP L. R. Fisher and S. Rummel (eds.), Ras Shamra Parallels, AnOr 49–51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972–81) RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques RSR Recherches de science religieuse RTQR Revue de théologie et de questions religieuses Salm Salmaticensis (Salamanca) SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testsament SBAB Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament SBEsp Semana bíblica española SBFLA Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLASP SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series SBLMS SBL Monograph Series SBLSCS SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBM Stuttgarter biblische Monographien SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBTS 3 D. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) ScEccl Sciences ecclésiastiques ScEs Science et esprit Schol Scholastik (Freiburg) ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana SDHI Studi et documenta historiae et Iuris SEÅ Svensk exegetisk årsbok SEAJT South East Asia Journal of Theology Sem Semitica SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism SGKA Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums SGKAO Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients SHR Studies in the History of Religions SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SKGG Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft SLR Stanford Law Review SR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses ST Studia theologica StMor Studia moralia StudBib Studia Biblica StudBT Studia biblica et theologica StZ Stimme der Zeit SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SWBA Social World of Biblical Antiquity SWDS Scrolls from the Wilderness of the Dead Sea (British Museum, 1965) TBC Torch Bible Commentaries TBl Theologische Blätter TBT The Bible Today TBü Theologische Bücherei TD Theology Digest TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. G. Bromiley, 9 vols. plus index vol. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76) TDOT G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, tr. D. Green et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–) TEH Theologische Existenz heute TGUOS Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society ThA Theologische Arbeiten ThStud Theologische Studiën ThVers Theologische Versuche ThViat Theologia Viatorum (Munich) TLOT E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, tr. M. Biddle, 3 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TP Theologie und Philosophie TQ Theologische Quartalschrift (Tübingen) TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie TRev Theologische Revue TRu Theologische Rundschau TS Theological Studies TSJTSA Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken TsTNijm Tijdschrift voor Theologie (Nijmegen) TT Theologisch Tidsskrift TThSt Trierer theologische Studien TToday Theology Today TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift TWAT G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– ) TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) UCPNES University of California Publications in Near Eastern Studies UF Ugarit-Forschungen UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) VC Vigiliae christianae VD Verbum domini VetChr Vetera Christianorum VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WBT Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie WD Wort und Dienst WF Wege der Forschung WHJP World History of the Jewish People, First Series: Ancient Times (in 4 divisions) WHJP1 E. A. Speiser, ed., At the Dawn of Civilization: A Background of Biblical History WHJP 2 B. Mazar, ed., Patariarchs WHJP 3 B. Mazar, ed., Judges WHJP 4 A. Malamaat and I. Ephʾal (eds.), The Age of the Monarchies, 2 vols. WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WO Die Welt des Orients Wor Worship WoWa Wort und Wahrheit WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament YJS Yale Judaica Series ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZABR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZEE Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik ZKT Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche ZVS Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft ZWT Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie ZZ Zeichen der Zeit

TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND ANCIENT WORKS Akk. Akkadian Arab. Arabic Aram. Aramaic B MT MS, edited by Jacob ben Chayim, Venice (1524/25) Copt. Coptic DSS Dead Sea Scrolls Eng. English Eth. Ethiopic Fr. French Ger. German Gr. Greek Heb. Hebrew K Kethib L MT MS, Leningrad Codex LXX Septuagint LXXA LXX MS, Alexandrian Codex LXXB LXX MS, Vatican Codex LXXS* LXX MS, Sinai Codex, original reading LXXSc LXX MS, Sinai Codex, corrector MT Masoretic Text Q Qere SP Samaritan Pentateuch SPW Samaritan Pentateuch, London polyglot, ed. B. Waltonii, vol. 1 (1654) Syh Syrohexaplaris Syr. Syriac Tg. Targum Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo- Ugar. Ugaritic Vg. Vulgate VSS ancient versions αʹ Aquila θʹ Theodotion σʹ Symmachus

HEBREW GRAMMAR abs. absolute acc. accusative act. active adv. adverb, adverbial c. common conj. conjunction, conjunctive consec. consecutive constr. construct def. art. definite article disj. disjunctive du. dual fem. feminine fut. future hiph. hiphil hithp. hithpael hoph. hophal impf. imperfect impv. imperative ind. indicative inf. infinitive int. interrogative juss. jussive masc. masculine niph. niphal pass. passive pf. perfect pilp. pilpel pl. plural prep. preposition ptcp. participle sg. singular suff. suffix(es)

BIBLICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS Gen Genesis Exod Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Deut Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges Ruth Ruth 1-2 Sam 1-2 1-2 Kgs 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chr 1-2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah Esth Esther Job Job Ps(s) Psalm(s) Prov Proverbs Eccl Ecclesiastes Cant Canticles, Song of Isa Jer Lam Lamentations Ezek Ezekiel Dan Daniel Hos Joel Joel Amos Amos Obad Obadiah Jonah Jonah Mic Micah Nah Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zeph Zephaniah Hag Haggai Zech Zechariah Mal Malachi 1-4 Kgdms 1-4 Kingdoms 1-2 Esdr 1-2 Esdras Tob Tobit Jdt Judith Add Esth Additions to Esther 4 Ezra 4 Ezra Wis Wisdom of Solomon Sir Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach) Bar Baruch Ep Jer Epistle of Jeremiah S Th Ch Song of the Three Children (or Young Men) Sus Susanna Bel Bel and the Dragon Pr Azar Prayer of 1-4 Macc 1-4 Maccabees Matt Matthew Mark Mark Luke Luke John John Acts Acts Rom Romans 1-2 Cor 1-2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Phil Philippians Col Colossians 1-2 Thess 1-2 Thessalonians 1-2 Tim 1-2 Timothy Titus Titus Philem Philemon Heb Hebrews Jas James 1-2 Pet 1-2 Peter 1-2-3 John 1-2-3 John Jude Jude Rev Revelation

MISCELLANEOUS ANE Ancient Near East B.C.E. Before Common Era, Before Christ ca. circa C.E. Common Era (A.D.) chap(s). chapter(s) col(s). column(s) diss. dissertation ed(s). edition; edited by; editor(s) esp. especially ET English translation FS Festschrift JB KJV l(l). line(s) lit. literally MOFFAT J. Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible (NT 1913) MS(S) manuscript(s) n. note n.d. no date NEB New English Bible NIV New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version n.s. new series NT New Testament OT Old Testament p(p). page(s) repr. reprint RSV Revised Standard Version Sup Supplement tr. translated by; translator Univ. University UP University Press v(v) verse(s) § section/paragraph Commentary Bibliography

In the text, references to works in this chronological bibliography of commentaries on Deuteronomy will be by author’s last name and date. Pages are given when the reference does not obviously deal with a chapter and verse under discussion. For a survey of works on Deuteronomy, see L. B. Cross, “Commentaries on Deuteronomy,” Theology 64 (1961) 184–89; H. D. Preuss,Deuteronomium, ErFor 164 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) 203–43.

The Church Fathers Commentaries by the church fathers are listed here alphabetically with the date of the book or a date pertaining to the author in parentheses after the author’s name: Augustine (354–430). Locutiones. PL 34, 531–38. ———. Opus Quaestionum. PL 34, 747–76. Bede (673–735). PL 91, 189–394. Cyril of Alexandria (441). PG 69, 643–78. Diodorus of Tarsus (394). PG 33, 1585–86; PL 50, 781–82 (only fragments remain). Hieronymus (Jerome) (410). PG 28, 451–504. Isidore of Seville (636). PL 83, 359–70. Origen (ca. 250). Adnotationes. PG 17, 23–36. ———. Selecta. PG 12, 805–18. Paterius (ca. 600). PL 79, 773–84. Procopius of Gaza (538). PG 87, 891–992. Pseudo-Bede (ca. 800). PL 93, 409–16. Theodoretus of Cyrrhus (457). PG 80, 401–56. Walafrid Strabo (849). PL 93, 67–506.

Early Jewish Commentators In recent years there has been renewed interest in the study of early Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy. See in particular: Basser, H. W. In the Margins of the Midrash: Sefre Texts, Commentaries, and Reflections. SFSHJ 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. ———, ed. Pseudo-Rabad: Commentary to Sifre Deuteronomy. SFSHJ 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Fraade, S. D. From Tradition to Commentary. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1991. Hammer, R., ed. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. YJS 24. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1986. Isseroff, S. A. An Introduction to Rashi’s Grammatical Explanations in the Book of Deuteronomy. New York: M. P. Press, 1993. Neusner, J. Sifre to Deuteronomy. Vols. 1–2, An Analytical Translation. BJS 98, 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. ———. Sifre to Deuteronomy. Vol. 3, An Introduction to the Rhetorical, Logical, and Topical Program. BJS 124. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Medieval Jewish Scholars Commentaries by medieval Jewish scholars primarily in France, Spain, and North Africa who wrote in Hebrew include: ben (Aaron the Younger) (1328–1369). Aaron ben Joseph ha-Rofe (Aaron the Elder) (1250–1320). Abravanel ( ben Judah) (1437–1508). Bahya ben Asher (1291). Bekhor Shor (Joseph ben Isaac) (12th century). Hizkuni (Hezekiah ben Manoah) (13th century). Ibn Ezra ( ben Meir) (1089–1164). Ibn Janah (Jonah) (ca. 1000–1050). Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid (1150–1217, Regensburg). Radak (David Kimchi) (1160–1235). Ralbag (Levi ben Gershon or Gersonides) (1288–1344). Ramban (Moshe ben Nahman or Nahmanides) (1194–1270). Rashbam (Shemuel ben Meir) (1080–1174). Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac) (1040–1105). Saadia ben Joseph (882–942). Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob) (15th-century Italy). Renewed scholarly interest is making some of this material more readily available for detailed study in such works as: Bechor-Schor, J. Der Pentateuch-Kommentar des Joseph Bechor-Schor zum fünften Buche Moses. Breslau: Koebnersche, 1914 (Heb.). Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. Tr. H. N. Strickmann and A. M. Silver. New York: Menorah, 1988. Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy. Tr. C. B. Chavel. New York: Shilo, 1976. ———. Commentary to the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Makor (facsimile copy of 1470 ed.). Rashbam. Der Pentateuch-Commentar des R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam). Ed. D. Rosin. Breslau, 1881. Rashi. The Commentary of Rashi on the Pentateuch by R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040– 1105). Berliners Edition and Sefer ha-Zikkaron, based on the first printed edition (Reggio de Calabria, 1475). Ed. M. R. Lehmann. New York: Manfred and Anne Lehmann Foundation, 1981. ———. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary. Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. London: Shapiro, Vallentine, 1929–34. ———. Sefer Debarim. Amsterdam: Lob ben Moses Sussmans, 1768. Sforno, O. Sforno Commentary on the Torah. Tr. R. Pelcovitz. ArtScroll Mesora Series 2. Brooklyn: Mesora, 1989. See also the commentary by S. Fisch (1947).

Christian Scholars in the Middle Ages Commentaries by Christian scholars in the Middle Ages include: Bruno of Astensis (1032–1101). PL 164, 505–50. Denis le Chartreux (Dionysius the Carthusian) (1402–71). In Opera Omnia. Montreuil, 1896. 2:519–721. Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141). PL 175, 29–86. Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349). Postilla Super Totam Bibliam, I. Strassburg, 1492. Repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva GmbH., 1971. Peter the Chanter (1197) (see Dahan, G. “Les interprétations juives dans les commentaires du pentateuque de Pierre le Chantre.” In The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley. Ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. 131–55. Peter Damian (1007–72). PL 145, 1063–1070. Rupert of Deutz (1070–1129). PL 167, 917–1000.

Protestant Reformers Among Protestant Reformers who returned the church to an emphasis on the Bible, see: Calvin, J. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Tr. C. W. Bingham. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950. ———. Commentarii Ioannis Calvini in Quinque Libros Mosis. Geneva: Gaspar, 1573. ———. Sermons upon Deuteronomie. Tr. A. Golding. Folio, 1583. Luther, M. Deuteronomion Mose cum Annotationibus. Wittenberg: Hans Luft, 1525 (See Lectures on Deuteronomy. Luther’s Works. Vol. 9. St. Louis: Concordia, 1960.). ———. Vorlesung über das Deuteronomium. 1523–24.

Roman Catholic Scholars Roman Catholic scholars who wrote commentaries on Deuteronomy in the century after the Council of Trent include: Bonfrère, J. (Antwerp, 1625). Calmet, A. (Paris, 1707) (See Commentarius Literalis in omnes Libros Veteris Testamenti. Ed. J. D. Mansi. Wirceburgi Sumtibus Publicis, 1789. 2:524–839.). Cornelius a Lapide (Antwerp, 1623) (See “Commentaria in Deuteronomium.” In Commentarii in Scripturam Sacram. Vol. 1. Paris: J. P. Pelagaud et Socios, 1854. 959–1147. See also “In Deuteronomium Commentarium.” In Scripturae Sacrae Cursus Completus. Vol. 7. Paris: J.-P Migne, 1861. 125–498.). Jansenius, C. (Leuven, 1641). Malvenda, T. (Lyon, 1650). Mansi, I. D. (Venice, 1754). Menochius, G. S. (Lyon, 1627). Sanctis Pagnini (1470–1541) (See Commentario in Mosi Pentateuchum. Ed. Hieronymus ab Oleastro. Antwerp, 1568.). Tirin, J. (Lyon, 1632) (See Universam S. Scripturam Commentarius. Ed. P. Zachariae and P. J. Brunengo. Taurini: Eq. Petri Marietti, 1882. 1:676–752.).

Other Scholars before 1800 Other commentaries before 1800 include: Anonymous. Explication de cinq chapitres du Deutéronome; et des prophéties d’Habacuc, et de Jonas. (Deut 29–33). Paris: Babuty, 1734. Ainsworth, H. Annotations upon the Five Bookes of Moses. London: M. Parsons, 1639. Arguiti, Y. B. (1773). Debarim. 3 vols. In MeAm Lóez. The Torah Anthology. Vols. 15–17 (Deut 1:1–21:9). Tr. A. Kaplan and S. Yerushalmi. New York; Jerusalem: Maznaim, 1984–85. Bar Hebraeus, G. A. (1226–85). A Commentary to Deuteronomy. Ed. G. Kerber. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1897. Bugenhagen, J. Annotationes ab ipso iam emissae: In Deuteronomium. Basil: Petri, 1524. Drusius, J. Ad loca difficiliora Pentateuchi, Quinque liborum Mosis commentarius Conscriptus. Franekerae Frisiorum, 1617. Frassen, C. Disquisitiones Biblicae in universum Pentateuchum. Paris: P. Witte, 1705. Gerhard, J. (1634). Commentarius super Deuteronomium. Jena, 1657. Guillemin, P. Commentaire littéral abrégé sur les livres de l’ancien et du nouveau Testament. Paris: Emery, 1721. Henry, M. (1662–1714). An Exposition of the Five Books of Moses. Edinburgh: Lunisden & Robertson, 1757. Jameson, R. A Critical and Practical Exposition of the Pentateuch. London: Knapton, 1748. Repr. Philadelphia: Martien, 1860. Kidder, R. A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses. London: J. Heptinstall, 1694. Leclerc, J. Mosis prophetae libri quatuor: Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, et Deuteronomium. Amstelodami: Wetstenium, 1696. Le Maistre, I. L. Le Deuteronome. Paris: G. Desprez, 1685. Lorini, J. Commentarii in Deuteronomium. Lugduni: Cardon, 1629. Marius, L. Commentariorum … in universam S. Scripturam. Dvsseldorpffii: Coloniae Agrippinae, 1621. Michaelis, J. H. (1717–91) (See Commentaries on the Laws of Moses. Tr. A. Smith. London: Rivington, 1814.). Parker, S., ed. Bibliotheca biblica: Being a Commentary upon … the Old and New Testament. Oxford, 1720. Patrick, S. Commentary on the Pentateuch. London, 1727. Pelargi, C. In Deuteronomium Sacrum; sive, Quintum librum Mosis commentarius. Leipzig: Lambergi, 1608. Pellicanus, C. (1478–1556). In Pentateuchum, sive Quinque libros Mosis … commentarii. Tigvri: Christophorvs Froschovervs, 1582. Piscator, J. Commentarius in Deuteronomium. Herbornae Nassov, 1615. Rabani Mavri. Commentaria, antehac nunquam typis excusa. Mense Martio, 1532. Spangenberg, C. In sacri Mosis Pentateuchum. Basil, 1564. Teller, R. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments, nebst einer vollständigen Erklärung derselben. Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf, 1750. 2:659–1013. Wesley, J. (1765–66) (See Wesley’s Notes on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987. 134–51.).

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries For purposes of convenience, the writing of commentaries on Deuteronomy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may be divided into four phases: 1805–1894, 1894– 1943, 1943–1963, and 1963–1999. Each phase is introduced by a major breakthrough in critical study: Phase 1—W. L. de Wette’s 1805 dissertation on Deuteronomy, which laid the cornerstone for the edifice of Pentateuchal literary criticism; Phase 2—the simultaneous, but independent, publications of C. Steuernagel and W. Staerk in 1894, which introduced redaction-critical study of Deuteronomy based primarily on the so- called Numeruswechsel (see Excursus: “The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy”); Phase 3—the publication of M. Noth’s theory that ties the study of Deuteronomy to the so- called Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomistic) History (Joshua through 2 Kings), which eventually led to what today is called canonical criticism; and Phase 4—N. Lohfink’s “stylistic” analysis of Deut 5–11 in 1963, which suggests unity of authorship and opens the door to new models for understanding the canonical process in ancient Israel.

Phase One (1805–94) Amat, D. F. “Libro del Deuteronomio.” In La Sagrada Biblia Nuevamente Traducida de la Vulgata al Español. Madrid: Don Leon Amarita, 1824. 2:3–102. Baumgarten, M. Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch: Erste Hälfte, Vom Anfang bis zum Gesetz. 1843. ———. Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch: Zweite Hälfte, Gesetzgebung. Kiel: Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1843–44. Bellamy, J. The Holy Bible, Newly Translated … with Notes, Critical and Explanatory. London: Longman, 1818 (includes Pentateuch only).

Benson, J. (1815). “Critical, Explanatory, and Practical Notes.” In The Holy Bible. New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846. 483–587. Brentano, D. von. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament. 1. Theils dritter Band, welcher das 5, Buch Mosis entahalt. Frankfurt am Main: Varrentrapp, 1832.

Clarke, A. (1811–16). “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy.” In The Holy Bible: With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville: Abingdon, n.d. 1:734– 848. Dillman, A. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KeH 13. 2nd ed. rev. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886.

Du Clot, M. “Notes sur le Deutéronome.” In La Sainte Bible vengée des attaques de l’incrédulité. Paris: Librairie de Louis Vivès, 1875. 2:352–71. Feilchenfeld, W. Die zwei letzten Abschnitte des Pentateuchs übersetzt und erklärt. Düsseldorf: W. de Haen, 1866.

Felipe, D. scio de San Miguel. “El Deuteronomio.” In La Biblia Vulgata Latina Traducida en Español, y Anotada Confrome al sentido de los Santos Padres y Espositores Católicos. Mégico: En Casa de Cornelio C. Sebring, 1831. 2:323–478. Fillion, L. Biblia Sacra, juxta Vulgatae exemplaria et correctoria romana. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1887. Jamieson, R. “The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy.” In The Critical and Explanatory Pocket Bible. Glasgow: William Collins, 1870. 1:131–58. ———, Faussett, A. R., and Brown, D. (ca. 1875). “The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy.” In A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948. 1:620–715. Kalisch, M. A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament. London: Longman, 1855. Keil, C. F. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. 2 vols. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1865 (2nd ed. 1870; ET: Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Tr. J. Martin. Edinburgh: Clark, 1864–65). Knobel, A. W. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua: Nebst einer Kritik des Pentateuchs und Josua. KeH 13. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1861.

Lees, R. L., and Burns, D. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Temperance Bible- Commentary. 3rd ed. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1872 (2nd ed. 1868). Lindsay, J. W. Deuteronomy. Commentary on the Old Testament. Ed. D. D. Whedon. New York: Eaton, 1891. M[ackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book of Deuteronomy. 2 vols. Chicago: Revell, 1880.

Maurer, F. J. V. D. “Deuteronomium.” In Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum. Leipzig: Fridericus Volckmar, 1835. 1:74–97. Montet, F. Le Deutéronome et la question de l’Hexateuque: Étude critique et exégétique sous form de’introduction et de commentaire du Deutéronome considéré dans ses rapports avec les quatre premiers livres Pentateuque et Josué. Paris, 1891. Oettli, S. Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter. Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments. Munich: Beck, 1893. Rosenmüller, E. F. K. Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Vol. 2, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomion. Leipzig: J. A. Bartius, 1821. Schroeder, F. W. J. Das Deuteronomium oder das Fünfte Buch Mose. Theologisch- homiletisches Bibelwerk. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1866 (ETenlarged by A. Gosman. Deuteronomy or the Fifth Book of Moses. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1879). Schultz, Fr. W. Das Deuteronomium erklärt. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859. Scott, T. The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments. 5 vols. Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, 1823. 1:488–585. Trochon, C. Introduction a l’étude de l’Écriture Sainte d’aprés “La Sainte Bible avec commentaires.” Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1889. Vater, J. S. Commentar über den Pentateuch. Vol. 3, Deuteronomium. Halle: Verlag der Waisenhaus-Buchhandlung, 1805. Waller, C. H. The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy. Ed. C. J. Ellicott. Handy Commentary on the Old Testament 5. London: Cassell, n.d. [188–?]. Weill, A. Le cinq livres de Moïse. Paris, 1890–91. Westphal, A. Le Deutéronome. Toulouse, 1891.

Phase Two (1894–1943) Anonymous. “Deuteronomy.” In The Sermon Bible. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1919. 1.1:303–56.

André, M. T. “Le Deutéronome.” In La Bible du Centenaire: La Sainte Bible: Traduction nouvelle d’aprés les meilleurs textes avec introduction et notes. Paris: Société Biblique de Paris, 1936. 237–90. Bertholet, A. Deuteronomium. KHC 5. Tübingen: Mohr, 1899. Betteridge, W. R. The Book of Deuteronomy. American Commentary on the OT 2. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1915. Clamer, A., ed. Lévitiqué, Nombres, Deutéronome. La Sainte Bible 2. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1940. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Dummelow, J. R., ed. “Deuteronomy.” In A Commentary on the Holy Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1909. 121–40. Eerdmans, B. D. Deuteronomy. London: Griffin & Co., 1927.

Espin, T. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary. Ed. F. C. Cook. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. 1.1:790– 928. Girdlestone, R. B. The Student’s Deuteronomy. London; New York: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899.

Gray, J. C., and Adams, G. M. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Biblical Encyclopedia. Cleveland: F. M. Barton, 1903. 1:457–553. Gressmann, H. Die Schriften des Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910 (2nd ed. 1922).

Halley, H. H. “Deuteronomy.” In Pocket Bible Handbook. Chicago: Henry H. Halley, 1924 (20th ed. in 1955 as Bible Handbook). 142–47. Harford, J. B. Deuteronomy. New Commentary on the Holy Scripture. London, 1928. Harper, A. The Book of Deuteronomy. Expositor’s Bible. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Hastings, J., ed. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Speaker’s Bible. Aberdeen: The ‘Speakers’ Bible’ Offices, 1924. 3:1–192. Hertz, J. H., ed. Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch and the Haftorahs 5. London: Oxford UP, 1936. Hoberg, G. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Pentateuch mit hebräischem Text und lateinischen Text. Freiburg: Herder, 1908,. Hoffmann, D. Das Buch Deuteronomium: Erster Halbband, Deut. I-XX, 9. Berlin, 1913. ———. Das Buch Deuteronomium: Zweiter Halbband, Deut. XXI, 16–XXXI. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1922. Hummelauer, F. von. Commentarius in Deuteronomium. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae 3:2. Paris: Sumptibus P. Lethielleux, 1901.

Irwin, C. H. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Irwin’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: John C. Winston, 1928. 59–68. Jordan, W. G. Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Junker, H. Das Buch Deuteronomium. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament. Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1933. König, E. Das Deuteronomium. KAT 3. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1917.

Kretzmann, P. E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Popular Commentary of the Bible. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1923. 1:303–62. Maclagan, H. The Book of Deuteronomy Intepreted and Explained. Paisley: Gardner, 1914.

Maclaren, A. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938. 2:1–86.

Marti, K. “Das fünfte Buch Moses oder Deuteronomium.” In Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament. Ed. E. F. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1922. 258–327. Moulton, R. G. Deuteronomy. Modern Reader’s Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1896. Reider, J. Deuteronomy: The Holy Scriptures with Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1937. Robinson, H. W. Deuteronomy and Joshua. New Century Bible. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1907.

Scott, D. R. “Deuteronomy.” In Abingdon Bible Commentary. Ed. F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis, and D. G. Downey. New York: Abingdon, 1929. 318–44. Smith, G. A. The Book of Deuteronomy. CBib. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1918. Steuernagel, C. Das Deuteronomium. HAT 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898 (2nd ed. 1923). ———. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. HKAT 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900 (2nd ed. 1923). Wilkins, G. The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy. Temple Bible 5. London; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902.

Witton, D. T. “Deuteronomy.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. London: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1920. 231–43.

Phase Three (1943–63) Cazelles, H. Le Deutéronome. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1950 (3rd ed. 1966).

Clarke, W. K. L. “Deuteronomy.” In Concise Bible Commentary. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. 383–93. Cohen, A., ed. The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. Hindhead: Soncino, 1947. Colunga, A., and García Cordero, M. Biblia Comentada. I. Pentateuco: Deuteronomio. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1960. 908–1057.

Cooper, C. M. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Old Testament Commentary. Ed. H. C. Alleman and E. E. Flack. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1948. 300–328. Crichton, T. S. Deuteronomy. Books of the Bible Series 5. Edinburgh: Church of Scotland Youth Committee, 1951.

Cunliffe-Jones, H. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. Ed. G. H. Davies, A. Richardson, and C. L. Wallis. New York: Harper, 1955. 150–57.

———. “Deuteronomy.” TBC. London: SCM Press, 1951.

Davies, G. H. “Deuteronomy.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Ed. M. Black. London: Nelson, 1962. 269–88. Dhorme, E. La Bible. Paris: Gillimard, 1956. Erdman, C. R. The Book of Deuteronomy: An Exposition. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1953. Glanzman, G. S. The Book of Deuteronomy. Pamphlet Bible Series 9. New York: Paulist, 1960. Haratom, E. S. Sefer Debarim. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1956 (Heb.). Hirsch, S. R. The Pentateuch. Vol. 5. London, 1962. Holwerda, B. Oudtestamentische voordrachten: Deel III, Exegese Oude Testament (Deuteronomium) (gehouden in de collegejaren 1946–1952).Kampen: Copiëerinrichtin, v.d. Berg, 1957. Junker, H. Das Buch Deuteronomium. Das Alte Testament. Zweites bis fünftes Buch Moses. Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1952. Krämer, K. F. Numeri und Deuteronomium. Herders Bibelkommentar 2.1. Freiburg: Herder, 1955.

Kuhn, H. B. “Deuteronomy.” In The Biblical Expositor. Ed. C. F. H. Henry. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1960. 1:184–208.

MacKenzie, R. A. F. “Deuteronomy.” In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Ed. B. Orchard et al. London: Nelson, 1953. 261–72.

Manley, G. T. “Deuteronomy.” In The New Bible Commentary. Ed. F. Davidson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953 (2nd ed. 1954). 195–222.

Moraldi, L. “Deuteronomio.” In La Sacra Bibbia. Turin: Marietti, 1960. 395–467.

Morgan, G. C. “Deuteronomy.” In An Exposition of the Whole Bible. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1959. 77–91.

Neil, W. “Deuteronomy.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1962. 131–41.

Nichol, F. D., ed. “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy.” In The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1953. 1:951–1077. Rabinowitz, C. D. Da ˒at Sofrim. Jerusalem, Da-at Yisrael, 1957 (Heb.). ———. Sefer Debarim. In Samaritan characters. Tel Aviv: Nezach, 1959 (Heb. tr. from German). Ridderbos, J. Het boek Deuteronomium, opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard. Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift, met nieuwe vertaling. Kampen: Kok, 1950 (ET: Deuteronomy. Tr. M. van der Maas. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Libarary, 1984).

Shires, H. H., and Parker, P. “Deuteronomy: Exposition.” IB. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. 2:331–537. Steinmann, J. Deutéronome: Texte français par Jean Steinmann: Introduction et commentaires par une équipe biblique du centre d’études Notre-Dame. Connaître la Bible. Brussels, 1961.

Wright, G. E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” IB. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. 2:311–537.

Phase Four (1963–1999) Achtemeier, E. Deuteronomy, Jeremiah. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Ackland, D. F. “Deuteronomy.” In The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Ed. H. F. Paschall. Nashville: Broadman, 1972. 115–36. Alonso Schökel, L. Deuteronomio. Los Libros Sagrados 1.2. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1970. 257–404. Blair, E. P. The Book of Deuteronomy; The . LBC 5. Richmond: John Knox, 1964.

Blenkinsopp, J. “Deuteronomy.” In Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 101–22.

———. “Deuteronomy.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. R. E. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and R. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. 94–109. Braulik, G. Das Testament des Mose: Das Buch Deuteronomium. Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar Altes Testament 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. ———. Deuteronomium 1–16, 17. NEchB. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. ———. Deuteronomium 16, 18–34, 12. NEchB. Würzburg: Echter, 1992. Brown, R. E. The Message of Deuteronomy: Not by Bread Alone. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Brown, R. E., S.S. The Book of Deuteronomy. OT Reading Guide 10. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1965. Buis, P., and Leclerq, J. Le Deutéronome. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1963. ———. Le Deutéronome. Verbum Salutis: Ancien Testament 4. Paris: Beauchesne, 1969. Cairns, I. Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Chouraqui, A. Paroles (Deutéronome). La Bible traduite et présentée 5. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1974. ———. L’Univers de la Bible. Vol. 2. Paris: Lidis, 1983.

Clements, R. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. 269–538. Clifford, R. Deuteronomy, with an Excursus on Covenant and Law. OT Message, A Biblical-Theological Commentary 4. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982. Coffman, J. B. Commentary on Deuteronomy: The Fifth Book of Moses. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian UP, 1988.

Cousins, P. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The International Bible Commentary. Ed. F. F. Bruce. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986 (1st ed. 1979). 256–82. Craigie, P. C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Criado, R. Deuteronomio:La Sagrada Biblia. Vol. 1. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1967. Cunliffe-Jones, H. Deuteronomy. TBC. London: SCM Press, 1964. Drubbel, A. Numeri uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. BOT 2.2. Roermond en Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1963. Francisco, C. T. The Book of Deuteronomy. Shield Bible Study Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1964.

Gilchrist, P. R. “Deuteronomy.” In The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Ed. W. A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989. 107–30.

Gottwald, N. K. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Ed. C. M. Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. 100–121. Hamilton, V. P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982. 375– 474.

Hanke, H. A. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Wesleyen Bible Commentary. Ed. C. W. Carter and W. R. Thompson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. 1.1:467–50. Hirsch, S. R. Deuteronomy. In The Pentateuch, V. Tr. I. Levy. 2nd ed. (completely revised). London: Bloch, 1966.

Hoppe, L. “Deuteronomy.” In The Collegeville Bible Commentary. Ed. D. Bergant and R. J. Karris. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1989. 196–228.

Kaplan, A. “Deuteronomy: Translation with Notes.” In The Living Torah. New York: Moznaim, 1981. Kline, M. G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963. Labuschagne, C. J. Deuteronomium. Vols. 1A and 1B. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1987. ———. Deuteronomium. Vol. 2. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1990. ———. Deuteronomium. Vol. 3. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1997. Laconi, M. Deuteronomio. Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia dai Test Originale 5. Rome: Paoline, 1970. Lamparter, H. Der Aufruf zum Gehorsam: Das 5. Buch Mose. BAT 9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977. Lamsa, G. M. Old Testament Light: A Scriptural Commentary Based on the Aramaic of the Ancient Peshitta Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Malbim, M. L. Rabbenu Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel: Commentary on the Torah. Tr. with notes by Z. Faier. Jerusalem: Hillel Press, 1978.

Manley, G. T., and Harrison, R. K. “Deuteronomy.” In New Bible Commentary. Ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Rev. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970. 201– 29. Mann, T. Deuteronomy. Ed. P. D. Miller and D. L. Bartlett. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Maxwell, J. C. Deuteronomy. Communicator’s Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Merrill, E. H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Miller, P. D. Deuteronomy. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Moraldi, L. Introduzione alla Bibbia; corso sistematico di studi biblici. Turin: Marietti, 1964.

Moran, W. L. “Deuteronomy.” In A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Ed. R. C. Fuller, L. Johnston, and C. Kearns. New and fully rev. ed. London: Nelson, 1969.

La Voix de la Thora 5. Paris: Fondation Samuel et Odette : קול התורה .Munk, E Levy, 1969 (2nd ed. 1978).

Nelson, R. D. “Deuteronomy.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. Ed. J. L. Mays et al. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 209–34. Nielsen, E. Deuteronomium. HAT 6. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995. North, G. Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christan Economics, 1999 (electronic edition available at www.freebooks.com). Payne, D. F. Deuteronomy. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Penna, A. Deuteronomio. La Sacra Bibbia. Turin: Marietti, 1976. Phillips, A. Deuteronomy. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1973. Plaut, W. G. Deuteronomy. The Torah: A Modern Commentary 5. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1974.

Polzin, R. “Deuteronomy.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible. Ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987. 92–101. Rad, G. von. Deuteronomy. Tr. D. Barton. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Rennes, J. Le Deutéronome: Traduction et commentaire. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1967. Ridderbos, J. Het Boek Deuteronomium: Opnieuw uit de grontekst vertaald en verklaard. Kampen: Kok, 1963–64. Rose, M. 5. Mose. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. AT 5. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994.

Sanders, J. A. “Deuteronomy.” In The Books of the Bible. Ed. B. W. Anderson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1989. 1:89–102. Schultz, S. J. Deuteronomy: The Gospel of Love. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971. Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974. Tigay, J. H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

Unger, M. F. “Deuteronomy.” In Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. 1:233–78.

Watts, J. D. W. “Deuteronomy.” In BBC. Ed. C. J. Allen. Nashville: Broadman, 1970. 2:175–296.

Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Wijngaards, J. Deuteronomium. BOT 2.3. Roermond en Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1971. Wright, C. J. H. Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

General Bibliography

SELECTED BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

The list that follows is given in alphabetical order within chronological blocks of time, beginning with the seminal work of W. M. L. de Wette in 1805, which marks the beginning of the modern critical era in the study of Deuteronomy. Monographs on specific passages or portions are noted in the chapter bibliographies.

1805–39 Wette, W. M. L. de. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 2 vols. Halle, 1806–1807. Repr. Hildesheim, NY: Olms, 1971. ———. Dissertatio critica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur. Jena, 1805.

1840–89 Bertheau, E. Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetz in den drei mittleren büchern des Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1840. Colenso, J. W. The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined. Part 3, The Book of Deuteronomy. London: Longman, 1863. Dahler, J. Jérémie et le Deutéronome. Strasbourg, 1872. Kayser, A. Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Erweiterungen: Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchkritik. Strassburg: Schmidt, 1874. Kleinert, P. Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentliche Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte. Bielefeld; Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1872. Kübel, R. Das alttestamentliche Gesetz und seine Urkunde. Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1867. Maine, H. Ancient Law. London: Murray, 1870. Riehm, E. Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in’s alte Testament. Gotha: Perthes, 1854. Saalschütz, J. L. Das Mosaische Recht. Part 2. Berlin: Cotteymann, 1853–54. Schoebel, C. Demonstration critique de l’authenticité Mosaique du Deutéronome. Paris, 1868. Sime, J. Deuteronomy, the People’s Book: Its Origin and Nature. London: Daldy, Isbister, 1877. Stähelin, J. J. Kritische Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Könige. Berlin: G. Reimers, 1843.

1890–99 Addis, W. E. The Documents of the Hexateuch Translated and Arranged in Chronological Order with Introduction and Notes. London: Putnam, 1898. Girdlestone, R. B. The Student’s Deuteronomy. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899. Hartmann, A. T. Historisch-kritische Forschungen über die Bildung, das Zeitalter und den Plan der fünf Bücher Moses. Rostock-Gustrow, 1893. Klostermann, A. Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893, 1907. König, J. L. Alttestamentliche Studien: Zweites Heft, Das Deuteronomium und der Prophet Jeremiah, gegen Bohlen, nebst anderen Beiträgen zur Authentie des Deuteronomiums. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1893. Kraetzschmar, R. Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung untersucht und dargestellt. Marburg: Elwert, 1896. MacDill, D. Mosaic Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Dayton: W. J. Shuey, 1896. Montet, F. La composition de l’Hexateuque, de Juges, de Samuel et des Rois: Étude critique biblique. Basel, 1894. Moor, F. de. La Date de la Composition du Deutéronome. Amien, 1891. Muir, W. The Authorship of Deuteronomy. Tr. G. J. Metzger. London, 1896. Naumann, O. Das Deuteronomium: Das prophetische Staatsgesetz des theokratischen Königtums mit seinen Eingangs- und Schlussworten, aus der prophetischen Geschichte und Theologie erläutert. Gütersloh, 1897. Preiss, H. Zum Deuteronomium. Schulprogramme Progress no. 55. Berlin, 1892. Reuss, E. Das Alte Testament: III, Die Heilige Geschichte und das Gesetz: Der Pentateuch und Josua. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1893 (French ed. 1879). Staerk, W. Beiträge zur Kritik des Deuteronomiums. Leipzig: Pries, 1894. ———. Das Deuteronomium: Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form: Eine kritische Studie. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1894. Steuernagel, C. Die Entstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes. Halle: J. Krause, 1896. ———. Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums: Literarcritische Untersuchung über seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung. Halle: J. Krause, 1894. Weill, A. Les cinq Livres (Mosaïstes) de Moïse: Cinquiéme Livre, Deutéronome. Paris, 1891. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1894 (3rd ed. 1899). Zahn, A. Das Deuteronomium: Eine Schutzschrift wider modernkritisches Unwesen. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1890.

1900–1909 Bruston, C. L’Histoire sacerdotale et le Deutéronome primitif. Paris: Fischbacher, 1906. Carpenter, J. E. The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words and Phrases and an Appendix on Laws and Institutions by G. Harford. London: Longmans, 1902. Cullen, J. The Book of the Covenant in Moab: A Critical Inquiry into the Original Form of Deuteronomy. Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1903. Erbt, W. Die Sicherstellung des Monotheismus durch die Gesetzgebung im vorexilischen Juda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Fries, D. S. A. Die Gesetzesschrift des Königs Josia: Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903. Grimme, H. Das Gesetz Hammurabis und Moses. Cologne: Backem, 1903 (ET: The Law of Hammurabi and Moses. London, 1907).

Halévy, J. “Recherches bibliques: Le Deutéronome.” RSEHA 7 (1899) 313–32; 8 (1900) 1–8, 97–114, 193–216. Harper, A. The Book of Deuteronomy. New York: Armstrong, 1901. McGarvey, J. W. The Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1902. Merx, A. Die Bücher Moses und Josua. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907. Müller, D. H. Die Gesetze Hammurabis und ihr Verhältnis zur mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den XII Tafeln. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1903. Sternberg, G. Die Ethik des Deuteronomiums: Inaugural-Dissertation. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1908. Wiener, H. Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism. Oberlin: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1909.

1910–19 Euringer, S. Der Streit um das Deuteronomium: Biblische Zeitfragen 4, 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1911. Griffiths, J. S. The Problem of Deuteronomy. London, 1911. Hempel, J. Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Literatur- und Rechtsgeschichte. Leipzig: R. Voigtländer, 1914. Jordan, W. G. Deuteronomy. New York: Macmillan, 1911. McNeile, A. H. Deuteronomy: Its Place in Revelation. London: Longmans, 1912. Naville, E. The Discovery of the Book of the Law under King . Tr. M. L. McClure. London: S.P.C.K., 1911. Oestreicher, T. Die josianische Reform: Das Reich Christi 12. Berlin, 1911. Pope, H. The Date of the Composition of Deuteronomy: A Critical Study. Holy Apostolic See and the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Rome: Frederick Pustet, 1910. Puukko, A. F. Das Deuteronomium: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BWANT 5. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910. Smend, R. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch: Auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912. Wiener, H. M. Pentateuchal Studies. London: E. Stock, 1912.

1920–29 Bentzen, A. Die josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen. Copenhagen: Haas & Söhne, 1926. Bewer, J. A., Paton, L. B., and Dahl, G. “The Problem of Deuteronomy: A Symposium.” JBL 47 (1928) 305–79. Jirku, A. Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament: Stilgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studien in den juristischen Gesetzen des Pentateuch. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927. Kennett, R. H. Deuteronomy and the Decalogue. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1920. Kittel, G. Sifre zu Deuteronomium. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1922. Kugler, F. X. Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchsproblem. BZAW 38. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924. ———. Von Moses zu Paulus. Münster: Aschendorff, 1922. Löhr, M. Das Deuteronomium: Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem II. SKGG 1.6. Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1925. Longacre, L. B. Deuteronomy, a Prophetic Lawbook. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1924. Menes, A. Die vorexilschen Gesetze Israels. BZAW 50. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1928. Möller, W. Rückbeziehungen des 5. Buches Moses auf die vier ersten Bücher: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Pentateuch im Sinne seiner Einheit und Echtheit. Lütjenburg, 1925. Mowinckel, S. Femte Mosebok: Det Gamle Testament: I. Loven eller de Fem Moseböker. Oslo, 1929. Naville, E. Le Deutéronome, un livre Mosaique. Fontenay-sous-Bois, 1924. Oestreicher, T. Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz. BFCT 27.4. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923. Rad, G. von. Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium. BWANT 47. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929. Ring, E. Israels Rechtsleben in Lichte der neuentdeckten assyrischen und hethitischen Gesetzeurkunden. Stockholm: V. Petterson; Leipzig: G. Fock, 1926. Sanda, A. Moses und der Pentateuch. ATAbh 9. Münster: Aschendorff, 1924. Siebens, A.-R. L’origine du code deutéronomique: Examen historique et littéraire du sujet à la lumiére de la critique contemporaine. Paris: Leroux, 1929. Staerk, W. Das Problem des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik. BFCT 29.2. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1924. Welch, A. C. The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origin. London: Clarke, 1924; New York, 1925. Wiener, H. M. Das Hauptproblem des Deuteronomiums. Tr. M. Kegel. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1924.

1930–39 Alt, A. Die Ursprunge des Israelitischen Rechts: Berichte ber die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 86/1. Leipzig, 1934 (ET: “The Origins of Israelite Law.” In Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Tr. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. 79– 132). Auerbach, E. Wüste und Gelobtes Land II. Berlin: Schocken, 1936. Breit, H. Die Predigt des Deuteronomisten. Munich: Kaiser, 1933. Cadoux, C. J. The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction and Translation. London, 1932. Horst, F. Das Privilegrecht Jahves: Rechtsgeschichtliche untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. FRLANT 45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930. Repr. in Gottes Recht: Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament. TBü 12. Munich: Kaiser, 1961. 17–154. Hulst, A. R. Het Karakter van den Cultus in Deuteronomium. Groningen: Wagingen, Veenman & Zonen, 1938. Krause, H.-H. Das Deuteronomium in der wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Breslau: Guttmann, 1931. Mackintosh, C. H. Deuteronomium: I. Vestaling. The Hague, 1935. Noth, M. Reichstempel und Ortsheiligtümer in Israel. BFCT 33. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1930. Rad, G. von. Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. BWANT 4.26. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936 (ET, 1966). Rudolph, W. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Jusua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. Siebens, A.-R. L’origine du code deutéronomique: Examen historique et littéraire du sujet à la lumiére de la critique contemporaine. Paris: Leroux, 1929. Stoderl, W. Das Gesetz Israels nach Inhalt und Ursprung: I. Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament. Marienbad, 1933. Welch, A. C. Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code. London: Oxford UP, 1932.

1940–49 Allis, O.T. The Five Books of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1943. Brinker, R. The Influence of Sanctuaries in Early Israel. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1946. Cazelles, H. Études sur le code de l’alliance. Paris: Letouzey, 1946. Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1947. Hospers, J. H. De Numeruswisseling in het Boek Deuteronomium. Utrecht: Kemink, 1947. Leroy, J. Introduction à l’étude des anciens codes orientaux. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1944. Noth, M. Die Gesetze im Pentateuch: Ihre Voraussetzungen und ihr Sinn. SKGG, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 17, 2. Halle: Niemeyer, 1940 (ET, 1966). ———. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943 (ET, 1981). Östborn, G. To ̄ ra ̄ in the Old Testament: A Semantic Study. Lund: Ohlssons Bookstore, 1945. Pedersen J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. London: Oxford UP, 1940. 3.4:580ff. Rabast, K. Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz. Berlin: Heimatdienstverlag, 1948. Rad, G. von. Deuteronomium-Studien. FRLANT 40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947 (ET, 1953). Winnett, F. V. The Mosaic Tradition. Near and Middle East Series 1. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1949.

1950–59 Althaus, P. Gebot und Gesetz: Zum Thema “Gesetz und Evangelium.” BFCT 46.2. Gütersloh: Bertelsman, 1952. Cazelles, H. Le Deutéronomie: La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1958. Diamond, A. S. The Evolution of Law and Order. London: Watts, 1951. Gray, J. The Legacy of Canaan. VTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 1957 (2nd ed. 1965). Hempel, J. Der textkritische Wert des Konsonantentextes von Kairener Genizafragmenten in Cambridge und Oxford zum Deuteronomium. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 1. Phil-Hist. Kl. no. 10, 1959. Kraus, H.-J. Die prophetische Verkündigung des Rechts in Israel. ThStud 51. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1957.

Kuyper, L. J. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” Int 6 (1952) 321–40. Lewy, I. The Growth of the Pentateuch: A Literary, Sociological, and Biographical Approach. New York: Bookman Associates, 1955. Manley, G. T. The Book of the Law: Studies in the Date of Deuteronomy. London: Tyndale, 1957. Mendenhall, G. E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955. Rad, G. von. Studies in Deuteronomy. Tr. D. Stalker. SBT 1.9. Chicago: Regnery, 1953 (German 2nd ed. 1948). Robinson, D. W. B. Josiah’s Reform and the Book of the Law. London: Tyndale, 1951. Smend, R. W. M. Leberecht de Wettes Arbeit zum Alten und am Neuen Testament. Basel: Helbirg & Lichtenhahn, 1958. Teeple, H. M. The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. JBL MS 10. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957. Wilson, J. A., et al. Authority and Law in the Ancient Orient. JAOSSup 17. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1954.

1960–69 Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Tr. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967 (rev. ed. 1979). Albright, W. F. and the Gods of Canaan. London: Athlone, 1968. Alt, A. Essays on Old Testament Religion. Tr. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Bächli, O. Israel und die Völker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomoium. Zurich: Zwingli, 1962. Baltzer, K. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1960 (ET, 1971). Barkun, M. Law without Sanctions. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1968. Becker, J. Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1965. Boecker, H. J. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. WMANT 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964 (2nd ed. 1984). Cazelles, H., ed. Moses in Schrift und Uberlieferung. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1963.

Claburn, W. E. “Deuteronomy and Collective Behavior.” Diss., Princeton, 1968. Clements, R. E. God’s Chosen People: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1968. ———. Prophecy and Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox; Oxford: Blackwell, 1975.

Coulton, P. E. “Geographical Aspects in the Deuteronomistic History.” Diss., Trinity College, Dublin, 1968–69. Ellul, J. The Theological Foundation of Law. Tr. M. Wieser. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960. Falk, Z. W. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964. Fenz, A. K. Auf Jahwes Stimme Hören. WBT 6. Vienna: Herder, 1964. Finkelstein, L., ed. Sifre on Deuteronomy. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. Gerstenberger, E. Wesen und Herkunft des apodiktischen Rechts. WMANT 20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Gunneweg, A. H. J. Leviten und Priester. FRLANT 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1969 (= Int 15 [January 1961] issue devoted to Deuteronomy). Jocz, J. The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968. Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. LaBonnardière, A. M. Biblia Augustiniana Ancien Testament: la Deutéronome. Paris: Études Augstiennes, 1967. L’Hour, J. La morale de l’alliance. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Loersch, S. Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Überblick. SBS 22. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Lohfink, N. Bibelauslegung im Wandel. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1967. ———. Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Deuteronomium 5–11. AnBib 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. ———. Höre Israel! Auslegung von Texten aus dem Buch Deuteronomium. Die Welt der Bibel 18. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1965. ———. Die Landverheissung als Eid. SBS 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967.

———. “Lectures in Deuteronomy.” Unpublished paper presented in Rome, 1968 (available in Graduate Theological Union Library, Berkeley, CA). Maarsingh, B. Onderzoek naar de Ethiek van de Wetten in Deuteronomium. Utrecht: Winterswijk, J. M. van Amstel, 1961.

McBride, S. D. “The Deuteronomic Name Theology.” Diss., Harvard, 1969. McCarthy, D. J. Der Gottesbund im Alten Testament. SBS 13. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966. ———. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. AnBib 21. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963.

McKay, J. W. “Josiah’s Reformation: Its Antecedents, Nature and Significance.” Diss., Cambridge, 1966–67. Merendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische, gattungs- und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt 12–26. BBB 31. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. Nicholson, E. W. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967. Noth, M. The Laws of the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Tr. D. R. Ap-Thomas. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966 (German ed., GSAT, 1960). Ottoson, M. Gilead: Tradition and History. ConBOT 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. Peucker, H. “Deuteronomium Kapitel 12–26 form- und rechtsgeschichtlich Untersucht.” Diss., Greifswald, 1962. Plöger, J. G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. BBB 26. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Porter, J. R. Moses and Monarchy. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963. Poulssen, N. König und Tempel im Glaubenszeugnis des Alten Testament. SBM 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Preuss, H. D. Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung. BWANT 5.7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968. Rad, G. von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Tr. E. W. Trueman Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966 (German ed., GSAT, 1958). Richter, W. Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruchs. SANT 15. Munich: Kosel, 1966. Schmid, H. Moses: Überlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 110. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1968. Segal, M. H. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Smend, R. Die Bundesformel. ThStud 68. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1963. Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. Tyndale Lecture in Biblical Archaeology 1963. London: Tyndale, 1964. Vaux, R. de. Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice. Tr. J. Bourke and R. Potter. Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 1964. Walkenhorst, K. H. Der Sinai im liturgischen Verständnis der deuternomistischen und priesterlichen Tradition. BBB 33. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. Welten, P. Die Königstempe: Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik unter Hiskia und Josia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1969.

Wenham, G. J. “The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy.” Diss., King’s College, London, 1969. Wijngaards, J. N. M. The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools. OTS 16. Leiden: Brill, 1969. ———. The Formulas of the Deuteronomic Creed. Tilburg: A. Reijnen, 1963; Review and Expositor (Fall 1964); Southwestern Journal of Theology(Fall 1964). Yadin, Y. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

1970–79 Baltzer, K. The Covenant Formulary. Tr. D. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 (from German 2nd ed., 1964; 1st ed., 1960). Barthélemy, D., Hulst, A. R., Lohfink, N., McHardy, W. D., Ruger, H. P., and Sanders, J. A. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: I. The Pentateuch. London: United Bible Societies, 1973. Begg, C. T. “Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel.” 5 vols. Diss., Univ. of Leuven, 1978. Beegle, D. M. Moses, the Servant of Yahweh. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Bellefontaine, M. E. “A Study of Ancient Israelite Laws and Their Function as Covenant Stipulations.” Diss., Univ. of Notre Dame, 1973. Bergren, R. V. The Prophets and the Law. MHUC 4. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. Blenkinsopp, J. Prophecy and Canon. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Braulik, G. Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4, 1– 40. AnBib 68. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Brekelmans, C., ed. Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie. BETL 33. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1974. Bright, J. Covenant and Promise. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Broide, I. “The Speeches in Deuteronomy.” Diss., Univ. of Tel Aviv, 1970 (Heb.; Eng. abstract). Brueggemann, W. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Buis, P. La notion d’alliance dans l’Ancien Testament. LD 88. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Carmichael, C. M. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1974. Cholewìnski, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. AnBib 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Cogan, M. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974. Cohen, A. L’entrée en terre promise: Deutéronome, Josué, Juges, une lecture de la Bible. Écouter la Bible 3. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1977. Cross, F. M., ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975).Cambridge: ASOR, 1979. Davies, G. I. The Way of the Wilderness. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979. Diepold, P. Israels Land. BWANT 95. Stuttgart; Berlin; Cologne; Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1972. Dietrich, W. Israel und Kanaan: Vom Ringen zweier Gesellschaftssysteme. SBS 94. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979. Floss, J. P. Jahwe dienen—Göttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament. BBB 45. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1975. Fritz, V. Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten. MThSt 7. Marburg: Elwert, 1979. Gilmer, H. W. The If-You Form in Israelite Law. SBLDS 15. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Gutmann, J., ed. The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion and the Arts 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

Hoppe, L. “The Origins of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Northwestern, 1978. Jackson, B. S. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. SJLA 10. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Jüngling, H.-W. Das Gesetz der Wiedervergeltung und das Ideal der Versöhnung im Alten Testament. Augsburg: Blasaditsch, 1975. Kane, T. F. God Who Gives: A Verbal Study of the Actions Attributed to God in the “Deuteronomic School,” with Special Attention to the Concept of God’s Giving. Universidad de Navarro Coleccion Teologica 7. Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1973. Kline, M. G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Köppel, U. Das deuteronomistiche Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen: Der Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen Num 21, 21–35 und Dtn 2, 26–3, 3. EHS 23.122. Bern: Lang, 1979. Kutsch, E. Gottes Zuspruch und Anspruch. BETL 33. Gembloux: Duculot, 1974. ———. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Liedke, G. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze: Eine formgeschichtlich-terminologische Studie. WMANT 39. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. Lindblom, J. Erwägungen zur Herkunft der josianischen Tempelurkunde. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. Lohfink, N. Unsere grossen Wörter: Das Alte Testament zum Thema dieser Jahre. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1977 (3rd ed.1985; ET, 1981). Mann, T. W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. McCarthy, D. J. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinion. Richmond: John Knox, 1972. ———. Treaty and Covenant. AnBib 21A. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978 (new ed., completely rewritten). Mittmann, S. Deuteronomium 1, 1–6, 3: Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BZAW 139. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975 (see G. Braulik,Bib 59 [1978] 351–83). Morris, P. M. K., and James, E. A Critical Word Book of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Computer Bible 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

Nebeling, G. “Die Schichten des deuteronomischen Gesetzeskorpus.” Diss., Münster, 1970. Neumann, P. K. Hört das Wort Jahwäs: Ein Beitrag zur Komposition alttestamentlicher Schriften. Schriften zur Stiftung Europa-Kolleg 30. Hamburg: Fundament-Verlag Sasse, 1975. Otto, E. Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. BWANT 107. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1975. Paul, S. M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Rofé, A. Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy I: Cult-Unity and Anti-Idolatry Laws. Jerusalem: Aqademon, 1975 (Heb.). Rose, M. Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit. BWANT 106. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975. Rücker, H. Die Begründungen der Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch. ETS 30. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973. Rupprecht, K. Der Temple von Jerusalem. Ed. G. Fohrer. BZAW 144. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Schedl, C. Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik. Vienna: Herder, 1974. Schmidt, W. H. Einführung in das Alte Testament: Das Deuteronomium. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Wegweisung gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. Schneider, B. N. Deuteronomy: A Favored Book of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: B. M. H. Books, 1970. Seitz, G. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. BWANT 93. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. Skweres, D. E. Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium. AnBib 79. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Speyer, W. Bucherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Terrien, S. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. Religious Perspectives 26. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf. VTSup 19. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Tiffany, F. C. “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11 (Deut 4:45; 5:2–11:29): A Form Critical Study.” Diss., School of Theology at Claremont, 1978. Valentin, H. Aaron: Eine Studie zur vorpriesterschriftlichen Aaron-Überlieferung. OBO 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Weimar, P. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW 146. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Wagner, V. Rechtssätze in gebundener Sprache und Rechtssatzreihen im israelitischen Recht. BZAW 127. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. ———. Introduction to Deuteronomy, Part I. Jerusalem, 1975 (Heb.). Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Whybray, R. N. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. BZAW 135. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974.

Wittstruck, T. K. “The Greek Translation of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Yale Univ., 1972.

1980–89 Auld, A. G. Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch—Pentateuch—Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980. Aurelius, E. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Ed. T. N. D. Mettinger and M. Y. Ottoson. ConBOT 27. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Benjamin, D. C. Deuteronomy and City Life: A Form Criticism of Texts with the Word CITY (˓ir) in Deuteronomy 4:41–26:19. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 1983. Boling, R. G. The Early Biblical Community in Transjordan. SWBA 6. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988. Bovati, P. Ristabilire la Giustizia: Procedure, Vocabulario, Orientamenti. AnBib 110. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Braulik, G. Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums. SBAB 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Buchholz, J. Die ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium. GTA 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Carmichael, C. M. Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985. Christensen, D. L., ed. Experiencing the Exodus from Egypt. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1988. Clements, R. E. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Coats, G. W. Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Duncan, J. “A Critical Edition of Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1989. Epsztein, L. Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1986. Eslinger, L. Into the Hands of the Living God. JSOTSup 84. Bible and Literature Series 24. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985. Friedman, R. E. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. García Lopez, F. Le Deutıronome: Une loi prêchıe. Cahiers Evangile 63. Paris: Cerf, 1988.

schwören”: Eine semasiologische Studie zum Eid im“ שׁבע Giesen, G. Die Wurzel Alten Testament. BBB 56. Bonn: Hanstein, 1981. Ginsberg, L. H. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982. Gottfriedsen, C. Die Fruchtbarkeit von Israels Land. EHS 23.267. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. Ha, J. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. BZAW 181. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Haag, E., ed. Gott der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel. QD 104. Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1985. Hoffmann, H.-D. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomischen Geschichtsschreibung. ATANT 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980.

Hofius, O., and Stuhlmacher, P., eds.“Gesetz” als Thema Biblischer Theologie.” JBTh 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Hossfeld, F.-L., ed. Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte. Würzburg: Echter, 1989 (= Int 41 [July 1987] issue on Deuteronomy; Int 43.3 [1989] issue on the Decalogue). Knapp, D. Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analysen und theologische Interpretation. GTA 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. Lang, B. Der einzige Gott: Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus. Munich: Kösel, 1981. Leibowitz, N. Studies in . Tr. A. Newman. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1980. Lemaire, A. Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israel. OBO 39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Lohfink, N. Great Themes from the Old Testament. Tr. R. Walls. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1982 (German ed. 1977). ———. Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ———. Unsere neuen Fragen und das Alte Testament: Wiederendeckte Lebensweisung. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. ———, ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1985.

McConville, J. G. “Cultic Laws in Deuteronomy.” Diss., Queen’s Univ., Belfast, 1980. ———. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Mulder, M. J., ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Assan; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Nelson, R. D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Niehr, H. Rechtsprechung in Israel. SBS 130. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Nielsen, E. Law, History, and Tradition: Selected Essays Issued by Friends and Colleagues. Ed. N. Holm-Nielsen and O. Benedikt. Copenhagen: Gad, 1983. Noth, M. The Deuteronomistic History. Tr. J. Douall et al. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 (German ed. 1943). Otto, E. Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22—XXIII 13. StudBib 3. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Patrick, D. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: Knox, 1985. Peters, M. Critical Edition of the Coptic Pentateuch: Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983. Polzin, R. Moses and the : A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury, 1980. Preuss, H. D. Deuteronomium. ErFor 164. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Regt, L. J. De. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1–30. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Ries, G. Prolog und Epilog in Gesetzen des Altertums. MBPR 76. Munich: Beck, 1983. Rifat, S. Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels. SBLDS 45. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980. Rofé, A. Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters. Jerusalem: Akademon Publishing House, 1988 (Heb.). Rose, M. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchung zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1981. Rüterswörden, U. Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16, 18–18, 22. BBB 65. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaum, 1987. Sanmartín Ascaso, J. Las guerras de Josué: Estudio de Semiótica narrativa. Institución San Jerónimo 14. Valencia: n.p., 1982. Schulz, H. Leviten im vorstaatlichen Israel und im Mittleren Osten. Munich: Kaiser, 1987. Schuman, N. A. Deuteronomium; op weg naar hat land Utopia. Kampen: VBG, 1983. Sitarz, E., ed. Höre, Israel! Jahwe ist einzig: Bausteine für eine Theologie des Alten Testament. Biblische Basis Bücher 5. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Strecker, G., ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-August-Universität. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Tan, C. W. “A Comparative Study of the Concept of Election in the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Jonah and Its Implications for Bible Study in the Chinese Churches in South-East Asia Today.” Diss., School of Theology at Claremont, 1983. Tigay, J. J. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. HSS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Weinfeld, M. Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations: Equality and Freedom in Ancient Israel in Light of Social Justice in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Wesel, U. Frühformen des Rechts in vorstaatlichen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985. Westbrook, R. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. CahRB 26. Paris: Gabalda, 1988.

White, S. “The Critical Edition of Seven Manuscripts of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1988. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Wilms, F.-E. Freude vor Gott: Kult und Fest in Israel. Schlüssel zur Bibel. Regensburg: Pustet, 1981.

1990–2000 Bell, R. H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT 2.63. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Braulik, G. Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog: Studien zum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 12–26. SBS 145. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991. ———. Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. SBAB 24. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997. ———, ed. Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Herders Biblische Studien 4. New York: Herder, 1995. Christensen, D. L., ed. A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays in Deuteronomy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Dahmen, U. Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und Redaktionsgeschechtliche Studien. BBB 110. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. Dangl, O. Methoden im Widerstreit: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugange zur deuteronomischen Rede von der Liebe Gottes. Tübingen: Francke, 1993. Eyre, S. D. Deuteronomy: Becoming Holy People. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998. Firmage, E. B., Weiss, B. G., and Welch, J. W. Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Gertz, J. C. Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz. FRLANT 165. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Haïk-Vantoura, S. The Music of the Bible Revealed. Tr. D. Weber. Ed. J. Wheeler. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1991 (= Int 44 [July 1990] issue on the figure of Moses). Keller, M. Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namentheologie. BBB 105. Weinheim: Belt Athenaum, 1996. Kissling, P. J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Labuschagne, C. J. Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000. Levinson, B. M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. Lohfink, N. Studien zur biblischen Theologie. SBAB 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993. ———. Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. ———. Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II. SBAB 12. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991. ———. Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III. SBAB 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. ———. Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Tr. L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. ———. Die Väter Israels im Deuternomium. OBO 111. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Lubsczyk, H. Die Bundesurkunde: Ursprung und Wirkungsgeschichte des Deuteronomiums. Weil-Bierbonnen: Gustav-Siewerth-Akademie, 1991. McConville, J. G. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Studies in OT Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993. ———and Millar, J. G. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 179. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Merwe, C. H. J. van der. The Old Hebrew Particle gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description of gam in Gn–2Kg. ATSAT 34. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1990. Morrow, W. S. Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1–17:13. SBLMS 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Nohrnberg, J. Like unto Moses: The Constituting of an Interruption. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. Olson, D. T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Perlitt, L. Deuteronomium Studien. FAT 8. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Pressler, C. The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Reuter, E. Kultzentralization: Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12. BBB 87. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1993. Romer, T. Israels Vater: Untersuchung zur Vaterthemnatik in Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Sonnet, J.-P. The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy. Biblical Interpretation Series 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Veijola, T., ed. Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Schriften der Finnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft 32. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Wilson, I. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Zobel, K. Prophetie und Deuteronomium: Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium. BZAW 199. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1992.

FESTSCHRIFTEN (WITH SIGNIFICANT ARTICLES ON DEUTERONOMY) A number of important articles on Deuteronomy appear in collections of essays presented in honor of various scholars. Such entries often have more than one editor and tend to take up considerable space when cited in full. Since Festschriften are referred to numerous times throughout the commentary, they are listed here for reference in alphabetical order, according to the last name of the person honored in the Festschrift, and arranged in consecutive blocks of time. Citations of these works in the commentary will include both the name of the person honored and the date of publication. 1897–1949 Barth, K. Theologische Aufsätze K. Barth zum 50. Geburstag. Ed. E. Wolf. Munich: Kaiser, 1936. Baudissin, W. W. G. von. Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft. Ed. W. Frankenberg. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1918. Beer, G. FS für Georg Beer zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. A. Weiser. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935. Gunkel, H. Εὐχαριστηριόν. Ed. H. Schmidt. FRLANT 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Kohut, A. Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut. Ed. G. A. Kohut. Berlin, 1897. Kohut, G. A. Jewish Studies in Memory of G. A. Kohut. Ed. S. W. Baron, A. Marx, E. D. Coleman, and R. Marcus. New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935. Marti, K. Vom Alten Testament. Ed. K. Budde. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1925. Sellin, E. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1927. Visscher, F. Mélanges de Fernand Visscher I. RIDA 2 (1949). Wellhausen, J. Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte Julius Wellhausen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. BZAW 27. Geissen: Töpelmann, 1914.

1950–1969 Albright, W. F. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961 (Anchor Book ed. 1965). ———. EI. Vol. 9. Ed. A. Malamat. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969. Barth, K. Antwort: Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956. ———. Parrhesia: K. Barth zum 80. Geburstag. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1966. Baumgartner, W. Hebräische Wortforschung. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Bertholet, A. FS Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburstag. Ed. W. Baumgartner. Tübingen: Mohr, 1950. Driver, G. R. Hebrew and Semitic Studies. Ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Eissfeldt, O. Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung. Ed. J. Hemple and L. Rost. BZAW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958. Elliger, W. Theologie und Kunst: Walter Elliger zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. S. Herrmann and O. Sohngen. Wittenberg: Luther, 1968. Geiselmann, J. R. Kirche und Überlieferung. Ed. J. Betz. Freiburg: Herder, 1960. Gelin, A. A la Rencontre Dieu. Bibliothèque de la Faculté Catholique de Théologie de Lyon 8. Le Puy: Mappus, 1961. Goodenough, E. R. Religions in Antiquity. Ed. J. Neusner. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Hertzberg, H. W. Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Junker, H. Lex Tua Veritas. Ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. Klauser, T. Mullus. Ed. A Stuiber and A. Herrmann. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 1. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964. Marx, A. Alexander Marx Volume on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950. Michel, O. Abraham Unser Vater. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Urchristentums 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Muilenburg, J. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Row; London: SCM Press, 1962. Quervain, A. de. Freude am Evangelium. Ed. J. J. Stamm and E. Wolf. BEvT 44. Munich: Kaiser, 1966. Rahner, K. Gott in Welt. Vol. 1. Ed. J. B. Metz et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1964. Rinaldi, G. Studi sull’ oriente e la Bibbia. Ed. G. Buccellati. Gênes: Studio e Vita, 1967. Robinson, T. H. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Ed. H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Rost, L. Das ferne und nahe Wort. Ed. F. Maass. BZAW 105. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Rudolph, W. Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ed. A. Kuschke. Tübingen: Mohr, 1961. Thielicke, H. Leben Angesichts des Todes. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. Thomas, D. W. Words and Meanings. Ed. P. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968. Vriezen, T. C. Studia Biblica et Semitica. Ed. W. van Unnik and A. van der Woude. Wageningen: Veenman, 1966.

1970–79 Albright, W. F. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright. Ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1971. Botterweck, G. J. Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Ed. H.-J. Fabry. BBB 50. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1977. Daube, D. Daube Noster: Essays in Legal History for D. Daube. Ed. A. Watson. Edinburgh; London: Chatto and Windus, 1974. Davies, G. H. Proclamation and Presence. Ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. 1970. Repr. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1983. Davies, W. D. Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Ed. R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. SJLA 21. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Doerne, M. Fides et Communicatio. Ed. D. Rössler et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Dupont-Sommer, A. Hommages à Andre Dupont-Sommer. Paris: Adrien-Maisenneuve, 1971. Elliger, K. Wort und Geschichte. Ed. H. Gese and H. Rüger. AOAT 18. Neukirken- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevealer: Butzon & Berker, 1973. Finkelstein, J. J. Essays on the Ancient Near East. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1977. Friedrich, G. Das Wort und die Wörter. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973. Gaster, T. H. JANESCU 5. Ed. M. David. New York: Columbia UP, 1973. Glueck, N. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Gordon, C. H. Orient and Occident. Ed. H. A. Hoffner. AOAT 22. Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevealer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973. Höffner, J. Die Kirche im Wandel der Zeit. Ed. F. Groner. Cologne: Bachem, 1971. Hyatt, J. P. Essays in Old Testament Ethics. Ed. J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. Jepsen, A. Schalom: Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels. Ed. K. Bernhardt. AzT 1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971. Kempf, W. Testimonium Veritati. Ed. H. Wolter. Frankfurter theologische Studien 7. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1971. Kornfeld, W. Studien zum Pentateuch. Ed. G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. Kuyper, L. J. Grace upon Grace. Ed. J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. LaSor, W. S. Biblical and Near Eastern Studies. Ed. G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Liagre Böhl, F. M. T. de. Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae. Ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Loewenstamm, E. Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East. Ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1978. McKenzie, J. L. No Famine in the Land. Ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Myers, J. M. A Light unto My Path. Ed. H. Bream. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1974. Rad, G. von. Probleme biblischer Theologie. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Schelkle, K. H. Wort Gottes in der Zeit. Ed. H. Feld and S. Nolte. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973. Schlier, H. Die Zeit Jesu. Ed. G. Bornkamm and K. Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, 1970. Selms, A. van. De Fructu Oris Sui. Ed. I. H. Eybers et al. POS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Stanley, D. M. Word and Spirit. Ed. J. Plevnik. Willowdale, Ont.: Regis College Press, 1975. Volterra, E. Studi in Onore di Edoardo Volterra. Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Giurisprudenza dell’Universita di Roma 45. Milan: Giuffré, 1971. Wright, G. E. Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology. Ed. F. M. Cross et al. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Ziegler, J. Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler. Ed. J. Schreiner. FB 1–2. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Zimmerli, W. Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. H. Donner et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

1980–89 Abramsky, S. Beer Sheva. Vol. 2. Ed. M. Cogan. Studies by the Department of Bible and the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Ahlström, G. W. In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature. Ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Alonso Díaz, J. Palabra y Vida. Ed. A. Vargas-Machuca and G. Ruiz. Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid 1.28. Madrid: Universidad Comillas, 1984. Alonso Schökel, L. El Misterio de la Palabra. Ed. V. Collado and E. Zurro. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983. Barthélemy, D. Mélanges D. Barthélemy: Études bibliques. Ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg: Universitaires, 1981. Bornkamm, G. Kirche: Festschrift für Gunther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag. Ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. Brelich, A. Religioni e Civiltà 3. Ed. V. Lanternari and M. Massenzio. Bari: Dedalolibri, 1982. Brunner, H. Fontes agque Pontes. Ed. M. Görg. ÄgAT 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983. Cazelles, M. H. De la Torah au Messie. Ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclée, 1981. ———. Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. Craigie, P. C. Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies. Ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. JSOTSup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Cross, F. M. Ancient Israelite Religion. Ed. P. Miller, P. Hanson, and S. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. Tradition and Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Ed. B. Halpern and J. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Delcor, M. Mélanges biblique et orientaux. AOAT 215. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985. Diakonoff, I. M. Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Ed. M. A. Dandamayev. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982. Freedman, D. N. The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor. ASOR: Special Volume Series 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Gordon, C. H. The Bible World. Ed. G. Rendsburg et al. New York: Ktav, 1980. Harrelson, W. Justice and the Holy. Ed. D. A. Knight and P. J. Paris. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Harrison, R. K. Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration. Ed. A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988. Hofmann, A. Diener in eurer Mitte. Ed. R. Beer et al. Schriften der Universität Passau, Reihe Katholische Theologie 5. Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1984. Hospers, J. H. Scripta Signa Vocis. Ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986. Kaiser, O. Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Ed. V. Fritz. BZAW 185. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Kraus, H.-J. “Wenn Nicht Jetzt, Wann Dann?” Ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Krause, G. Vom Amt des Laien in Kirche und Theologie. Ed. H. Schröer and G. Müller. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Lohfink, N. BN 43 (1988). Martin-Achard, R. Hommage à Robert Martin-Achard. Ed. M. Faessler. Bulletin du Centre Protestant d’Études 36. Geneva: Centre Protestant d’Études. 1984. Mendenhall, G. E. The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Ed. H. Huffmon, F. Spina, and A. Green. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Molin, G. Meqor Hajjim. Ed. I. Seybold. Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1983. Möller, J. Im Gespräch, der Mensch: Ein interdisziplinarer Dialog: Joseph Möller zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Gauly et al. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. Vonn Kanaan bis Kerala. Ed. W. C. Delsman et al. AOAT 211. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1982. Plöger, J. G. Freude am Gottesdienst: Aspekte ursprünglicher Liturgie. Ed. J. Schreiner. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Polotsky, H. J. Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky. Ed. D. W. Young. East Gloucester, MA: Pirtle & Polson, 1981. Pope, M. H. Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Co., 1987. Reicke, B. The New Testament Age. Vol. 2. Ed. W. C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1984. Rosenthal, E. I. J. Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Ed. J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif. Univ. of Cambridge Oriental Publications 32. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Scharbert, J. Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferungen im Alten Testament. Ed. M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Schnackenburg, R. Neues Testament und Ethik. Ed. H. Merklein. Freiberg: Herder, 1989. Seeligmann, I. L. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World. Ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983. Smalley, B. The Bible in the Medieval World. Ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. Steiger, L. Theologische Brosamen für Lothar Steiger zu seinem 50. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Stegemann. BDBAT 5. Heidelberg, 1985. Vajda, G. Études d’histoire et de pensée juives. Ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati. Louvain- la-Neuve: Peeters, 1980. Voigt, F. G. Das lebendige Wort: Beiträge zur kirchlichen Verkündigung. Ed. H. Seidel and K.-H. Bieritz. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982. Westermann, C. Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: FS C. Westermann. Ed. R. Albertz et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Wevers, J. W. De Septuaginta. Ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox. Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984. Wolff, H. W. Die Botschaft und die Boten. Ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Yadin, Y. JJS 33 (1982) (repr. as Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin. Ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1983).

1990–99 Assfalg, J. Lingua Restituta Orientalis. Ed. R. Schulz and M. Görg. ÄgAT 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990. Brekelmans, C. H. W. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1997. Füglister, N. Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität. Ed. V. Reiterer. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Greenberg, M. Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Ed. M. Cogan, B. Eichler, and J. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Greenfield, J. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Haran, M. Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Ed. M. V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Labuschagne, C. J. Studies in Deuteronomy. Ed. F. Garcia et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Lohfink, N. Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Ed. G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1993. Milgrom, J. Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. Ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurwitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Nejanc, F. The Four Gospels 1992: FS Frans Nejanc. Vol. 1. Ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1992. Reinelt, H. Die alttestamentliche Botshaft als Wegweisung. Ed. J. Zmijewski. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Rendtorff, Rolf. Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: FS für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Blum. Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Sanders, J. A. The Quest for Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Reading 6: Laws on Human Affairs in Relation to Others (21:10–25:19)

Bibliography Braulik, G. “Die Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 12–26 und der Dekalog.” In Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1985. 252–72 (= Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums. Ed. G. Braulik. 1988. 231–55). ———. “Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomischen Gesetze: Ihre Abhängigkeit von Levitikus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomium 22, 1–12; 24, 10–22; 25, 13–16.” In Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Ed. G. Braulik. HBS 4. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. 1–25 (= Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. Ed. G. Braulik. 1997. 147–82). ———. “Weitere Beobachtungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium 19–25.” In Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. Ed. G. Braulik. 1997. 183–223. Bultmann, C. Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff “ger und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung. FRLANT 153. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Carmichael, C. M. “A Common Element in Five Supposedly Disparate Laws.” VT 29 (1979) 129–42.———. “A Time for War and a Time for Peace: The Influence of the Distinction upon Some Legal and Literary Material in Deuteronomy.” JJS 25 (1974) 50–64.— ——. “Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law: The Evidence of Deut 21:15– 22:5.” JBL 101 (1982) 505–20.———. Women, Law and the Genesis Traditions. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Press, 1979. Carrière, J.-M. “L’organisation des lois en Dt 19–26: Les lois sur le mariage.” NRT 114 (1992) 519–32. Gertz, J. C. Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz. FRLANT 165. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Greenberg, M. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law” (1960). Repr. inSBTS 3:17– 20. Houten, C. van. The Alien in Israelite Law. JSOTSup 107. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Kaufman, S. A. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law.”MAARAV 1.2 (1978–79) 105– 58. Lohfink, N. “Das deuteronomische Gesetz in der Endgestalt—Entwurf einer Gesellschaft ohne marginale Gruppen.” In Studien zum Deuteronomium III. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1995. 205– 18. Merendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz. 1969. Otto, E. “Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law.” In Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Ed. B. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. 160–96. ———. “Soziale Verantwortung in Deuteronomium 19–25.” In Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996. 123–38. ——— . “Soziale Verantwortung und Reinheit des Landes: Zur Redaktion der kasuistischen Rechstssätze in Deuteronomium 19–25.” In Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: FS S. Herrmann. Ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991. 290– 306. ———. “Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium.” In FS N. Lohfink. 1992. 260–78. Rofé, A. “Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant.” Hen 9 (1987) 131– 59. Wenham, G. J., and McConville, J. G. “Drafting Techniques in Some Deuteronomic Laws.” VT 30 (1980) 248–52. Westbrook, R. “Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes.” RevistBib 92 (1985) 247–64. ———.“Riddles in Deuteronomic Law.” In Bundesdokument und Gesetz. 1995. 159–74. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLASup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27–44, esp. 33–34.

Introduction The sixth of the eleven weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings when you go forth,” from its opening“ ,כי תצא from Deuteronomy, which is known as words, extends from 21:10 through 25:19 and coincides with the fourth major section in my outline of Deut 12–26. A Public worship at the central sanctuary and in local towns 12:1–14:21 B Laws on human affairs in relation to God—sacred 14:22–16:17 X Laws on leadership and authority—executive and judicial 16:18–21:9 B′ Laws on human affairs in relation to others—secular 21:10–25:19 A′ Public worship at the central sanctuary and in local towns 26:1–19 Within the so-called central core of Deuteronomy (chaps. 12–26), the weekly portions in the assigned Torah readings agree with the book’s literary structure on the basis of the prosodic-textual analysis presented here, except that the fourth of the weekly portions (11:26–16:17) covers two sections of my outline, and the seventh (26:1– 29:8 [9]) extends well into the next major section of the book (Deut 27–30). Commentators almost always describe the laws in 21:10–25:19 as “miscellaneous laws,” with the implication that there is little if any discernible structure in the arrangement of these forty-three laws. As we will see in the discussion below, the ordering of the laws is concentric in nature and the primary structural markers are a sequence of laws on the subjects of marriage and war (24:10– 14; 23:1 [Eng. 22:30]; 24:1–5; 25:17–19), which correspond with the sixth and seventh commandments (prohibiting murder and adultery). Within this structure, most of the laws here deal with matters of social ethics in laws that correspond with the eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments (on theft, false testimony, and coveting). As was the case for each of the previous three major sections of the central core of Deuteronomy, the forty-three laws in 21:10–25:19 may be outlined in a five-part concentric structural design: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Eighteen laws on “true religion” and illicit mixtures 21:15–22:29 X Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 B′ Seven laws on “true religion” 23:2–26 A′ Sixteen laws on marriage, war, and “true religion” 24:1–25:19 In this reading the primary structural markers are two laws dealing with both marriage and war (21:10–14 and 24:1–4), which make up the first half of the outer frame (21:10– 14) and the opening law in its second half (24:1–25:19). The inner frame is made up of twenty-five laws in two complex sections whose primary themes are what I have called “true religion” and the subject of illicit mixtures (21:15–22:29 and 23:2–26). By “true religion” I mean with the letter of James, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (Jas 1:27). These laws on matters of humanitarian concern are extended to the animal world as well. In the center of the above structure is a distinctive and enigmatic law prohibiting marriage to one’s father’s wife, which in a polygamous society includes one’s father’s concubines, as we will see. The forty-three laws in this section are distributed in a combination of seventeen plus twenty-six, the two sacred numbers that C. J. Labuschagne has discussed in “The Secret of the Hidden Sacred Numbers 17 and 26,” in Numerical Secrets of the Bible [1999] 75–104). The twenty-six laws in the center (21:15–25:16) are framed by laws on the subjects of marriage and war (21:10–14 and 24:1–5), which are among seventeen in the outer frame: the initial law on marriage and war (21:10–14), and sixteen laws in 24:1–25:19 that are framed by a law on marriage and war (24:1–5) and another on holy war (25:17–19). The last is the concluding exhortation to remember the Amalekite aggression in the days of the exodus from Egypt. The sixteen laws in 24:1–25:19, which I take up in detail later in this commentary, may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A Forbidden remarriage and military deferral of a new husband 24:1–5 B Eight laws on social ethics and humanitarian concerns 24:6–22 C Limits on flogging and not muzzling the ox 25:1–4 X Levirate marriage 25:5–10 C′ Improper intervention in a fight 25:11–12 B′ Social ethics: honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression (holy war) 25:17–19 The framework in this construction (A, X, A′) is made up of two laws on marriage (24:1–4; 25:5–12) and two on war (24:5; 25:17–19). The law on levirate marriage in the center (25:5–12) is framed by three laws dealing with humanitarian issues: laws setting limits on flogging (25:1–3) and a law that prohibits the muzzling of an ox as it threshes grain (25:4). These laws are set over against the curious law on improper intervention on the part of a woman in behalf of her husband, in which she grabs his opponent by the genitals (25:11–12). The remaining frame moves from a series of eight laws on matters of social ethics and humanitarian concerns (24:6–22), to a single law on social ethics in the matter of honest weights and measures (25:13–16). Another way of looking at the structural unity of 21:10–25:19 as a whole is to examine the relationship between the individual laws within a more elaborate concentric structural design: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Social justice: right of firstborn in polygamous marriage 21:15–17 C Family law: insubordinate son 21:18–21 D Humanism: treatment of executed criminal’s body 21:22–23 E Social ethics: helping with lost and fallen animals 22:1–4 F Humanism: releasing a mother bird; parapet on the roof 22:6–8 G Sex: adultery and other illicit mixtures prohibited 22:9–22:29 H Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s former wife 23:1 I Restrictions on entry into the assembly of YHWH 23:2–9 X Sanctity of the military camp 23:10–15 I′ Asylum for escaped slaves 23:16–17 H′ Prohibition of prostitution [+ 23:20–26] 23:18–19 G′ Sex: forbidden remarriage 24:1–4 F′ Humanism: deferral of new husband from the army 24:5 E′ Social ethics: taking care of poor and vulnerable 24:6–22 D′ Humanism: limits on flogging and not muzzling the ox 25:1–4 C′ Family law: levirate marriage 25:5–12 B′ Social justice: honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression (holy war) 25:17–19 The structural design of the whole appears to be shaped around four central issues: warfare, marriage (sex and family), social ethics (care of the poor and vulnerable), and humanitarian concerns. These four general subjects are extensions of commandments six through ten of the Ten Commandments: on homicide (warfare), adultery (illicit mixtures), theft (property), false testimony (social and economic justice), and coveting (humanitarian issues). Matters of warfare, though limited to only four short laws, play a dominant role in the structure of the whole as observed here, appearing at the beginning (21:10–14), in the middle (23:10–17), and at the end (25:17–19). The second major concern is that of marriage and obligations in the area of sexual behavior and family life. The third concern of primary importance centers on the matter of social ethics, and the care of the widow, orphan, and alien in particular. The fourth concern is humanitarian in nature, with laws on the treatment of the body of an executed criminal (21:22–23), limits to flogging (25:1–3), not muzzling an ox while it threshes (25:4), and not taking the mother bird with her young (or eggs) (22:6–7). In almost all cases, the laws in which these four concerns are expressed are arranged in a carefully balanced manner in palindromic manner. These laws are often also arranged in a pattern of three plus one, with a single law in one part of the structure set over against a group of three, which are usually more closely related with one other in some way. The reason most commentators have concluded that the laws in this section of Deuteronomy are miscellaneous in nature is that they have failed to observe the concentric structural design of the whole and of its parts, at all levels of analysis. Each half of the inner frame in the five-part concentric design of 21:10– 23:1 and 23:2–25:19 may in turn be outlined within parallel five-part structures: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Family law: right of firstborn, insubordinate son 21:15–21 X Laws on “true religion” and illicit mixtures 21:22–22:12 B′ Family law: premarital unchastity, adultery, and rape 22:13–29 A′ Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 A On admission to the assembly of YHWH in the future 23:2–9 B War and sex: a frame around caring for the poor and vulnerable 23:10–24:5 X Laws on “true religion”—protecting the poor and vulnerable 24:6–25:4 B′ Levirate marriage, improper fighting, weights and measures 25:5–16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression in times past 25:17–19 The focus of interest in the first half (21:10–23:1) is marriage, family law, and illicit mixtures. The primary concern of the second half (23:2–25:19) is social and business ethics, focused primarily on care for the poor and vulnerable, symbolized in the familiar Deuteronomic trio of the widow, orphan, and resident alien. Within these parallel structures, each section displays a similar pattern, which I take up in detail in the commentary below. The key to understanding the literary structure of 21:10–25:19 is found in a close look at the laws dealing with war and marriage. As I have shown in the general introduction to the laws of 16:18–21:9, the subject of war corresponds with the sixth commandment, the prohibition of murder (5:17). The subject of marriage and family law corresponds with the seventh commandment, the prohibition of adultery (5:18). Deut 21:10–25:19 opens with a law that touches on both marriage and war: the law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14). It closes with a brief passage on holy war in the exhortation to remember the aggression of the Amalekites in the days of the exodus from Egypt (25:17–19). The second law on marriage per se, the prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife (23:1), functions as the second half of an envelope that marks the end of the first major subsection (21:10–23:1), which is essentially a commentary on the seventh commandment. The law in 23:1 plays a double role, for it is also the initial part of a structural frame for the laws of 23:1–24:4, forming an inclusion with the law forbidding remarriage if a man’s former wife has remarried in the interim (24:1–4). The laws on social ethics in 23:2–26 open with a group of laws on who is permitted to be included in the assembly of YHWH (23:2–9) and the second of the four laws on matters of war, the sanctity of the military camp (23:10–15). As shown in the discussion below, the laws in 23:1–24:4 are essentially a commentary on the sixth through the tenth commandments, in relation to commandments one through three on the matter of true religion, a topic that was already introduced in the previous subsection (21:22– 22:4;22:6–8; and in 22:12 by way of a riddle of sorts on the meaning of wearing tassels on garments). The vertical aspect of true religion in 23:2–24:4, in terms of the relationship between the worshiper and God, moves from the opening demand for holiness in the military camp (23:10–15) to the prohibition of “holy prostitution” (23:18–19) and then to the law on timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (23:22– 24). The horizontal aspect of true religion is introduced in the previous section of laws dealing with marriage and family and illicit mixtures (Deut 21:10–23:1) in the three subunits designated here as “true religion.” The subject is expanded in 23:2–24:4 with a law on asylum for escaped slaves (23:16–17) and three laws dealing with the protection of the poor and vulnerable in 23:20–26. What is presented here is expanded in the concluding major subsection of the sixth weekly portion of Torah readings in Deuteronomy (24:5–25:19), which has in its center a summation of the matter: “You shall not pervert justice to the alien or the orphan and you shall not take in pledge a widow’s garment” (24:17). This is essentially what James described as “true religion”: “to care for orphans and widows in their need, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27). The concluding section in 24:5–25:19 spells out in detail what it means to protect the poor and the vulnerable, within a framework that moves from the last of the four laws on marriage (21:10–14; 23:1; 24:1–4; 24:5), to the last of the four laws on war (21:10–14; 23:10–15; 24:5; 25:17–19). The law on deferral of a new husband from military service in 24:5 and the concluding admonition to remember Amalekite aggression in 25:17–19 form an envelope around what is essentially a grand conclusion to the collection of laws in Deut 12–25. In short, to keep the Torah as taught by Moses is to “fear God” and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:37–39). The twenty laws in 21:10–23:1 are essentially an expansion of the seventh commandment prohibiting adultery (5:18), which include six laws on what I have called “true religion.” The laws are grouped in four general categories that are arranged in a concentric pattern: A On marriage—with a woman captured in war (21:10–14) B Family laws: on children (21:15–21) Right of firstborn in a polygamous family (21:15–17) Punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18–21) C True religion (21:22–22:4) Treatment of the corpse of an executed criminal (21:22–23) Returning lost animals (22:1–3) Assisting fallen animals (22:4) D Illicit Mixtures (22:5) Not wearing clothing of the opposite sex (22:5) X True Religion (22:6–8) Not capturing a mother bird with her young (22:6–7) Building a parapet around the roof of one’s house (22:8) D′ Illicit Mixtures (22:9–11) Forbidden combinations of seed (22:9) Forbidden combinations of animals in plowing: ox and ass (22:10) Forbidden combinations in textiles (22:11) C′ True religion (22:12) Tassels on garments (22:12) B′ Family laws: marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–29) False accusations of premarital unchastity (22:13–19) True accusations of premarital unchastity (22:20–21) Adultery with a married woman or engaged virgin (22:22–24) Rape of an engaged virgin (22:25–27) Rape of an unengaged virgin (22:28–29) A′ On marriage—prohibition of taking one’s father’s wife (23:1) Two laws on marriage function as the outer frame in this structure (21:10–14 and 23:1), whereas the next level in the nesting of parallel laws extends the concept of “family law” to children (21:15–21) and to the central issue of marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–29). Within this last group of five laws, we find explicit repetition of the law prohibiting adultery (22:22), of which the larger structure is a literary expansion. The aspect of adultery as an illicit mixture is expanded in a law pertaining to human beings (not wearing clothing of the opposite sex, 22:5) that is set over against three laws pertaining to the nonhuman aspect of the created order: forbidden combinations in seed, plow animals (the ox and the ass together), and textiles (the combination of wool and linen). On either side of these laws on illicit mixtures are a series of laws I have designated as “true religion.” In the first such frame are three laws pertaining to either human beings (the corpse of an executed criminal, 21:22–23) or animals (lost or fallen, 22:1–4) and a fourth dealing with the wearing of tassels on garments (22:12). In the center are two peculiar laws on “true religion” in relation to the nonhuman aspect of the created order (not capturing a mother bird with her young, 22:6–7) and the human aspect as well (building a parapet around the edge of the roof of one’s house, 22:8). The message presented within this structural arrangement is profound: in the world of ecology, as well as in human relations, we are entrusted with responsibility under God to exercise our “dominion over everything that has the breath of life” (Gen 1:30). A series of four distinctive laws on matters pertaining to marriage and war is used as a structuring framework within which to organize the laws in21:10–25:19. The law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14) is the first of these four laws, which form a chiastic framework around seven laws on matters of social ethics (23:2–26), which may be outlined as follows: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 X Seven laws on matters of social ethics 23:2–26 B′ Prohibition of remarriage if former wife has remarried 24:1–4 A′ Deferral of new husband from military service 24:5 The pair of laws in the outer frame of this structure deal with the subjects of both marriage and war (21:10–14 and 24:5). The two laws in the inner frame both deal with circumstances in which marriage is prohibited (23:1 and 24:1–4). The seven laws in the center of this structure may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A Admission to the assembly of YHWH 23:2–9 B Sanctity of the military camp 23:10–15 C Asylum for escaped slaves 23:16–17 X Prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 C′ Prohibition of lending at interest 23:20–21 B′ Timely fulfillment of vows to YHWH 23:22–24 A′ Right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops 23:25–26 The central law within the seven laws on matters of social ethics in this structure is the curious law on “holy prostitution” (23:18–19), which has the quality of a “riddle at the middle” that we have seen elsewhere. The framework in this structure (A, X, A′) moves from a law concerning those who are excluded from the assembly of YHWH (including Ammonites and Moabites) and the inclusion of the Edomites, “for he is your brother” (v 8), and the Egyptians (23:2–9), to a law on the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (23:25–26). As we will see in the detailed discussion of this law below, it was used to shape narrative tradition elsewhere about the “unbrotherly conduct” of the Edomites. In the center of this structure we find the riddle of “holy prostitution” (23:18–19). The outermost frame in this structure moves from the law on the sanctity of the military camp (23:10–15), where “YHWH your God” walks in the midst of the camp (v 15), to a law on the timely fulfillment of vows to YHWH (23:22– 24). The innermost frame moves from a law on asylum for escaped slaves (23:18–19) to a law prohibiting lending at interest “to your brother” (v 20), who as a fellow Israelite has the heritage of being an escaped slave (23:20–21). The structures outlined here suggest that the law prohibiting “holy prostitution” in its center (23:18–19) is to be interpreted within the context of the other six laws on marriage and war as the center of another menorah pattern: A Marriage and war—marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Marriage—prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 C War—sanctity of the military camp 23:10–15 X Prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 C′ Marriage—prohibition of remarriage if former wife remarried 24:1–4 B′ Marriage and war—deferral of new husband from military service 24:5 A′ YHWH’s Holy War—remembering Amalekite aggression 25:17–19 The framework in this structure (A, X, A′) moves from the first of two laws dealing with both marriage and war (21:10–14) to the concluding reminder to remember Amalekite aggression at the outset of YHWH’s Holy War in times past (25:17–19), with the curious law on the prohibition of “holy prostitution” in the center (23:18–19). The outermost frame moves from a law prohibiting marriage to one’s father’s wife (23:1) to the second law that deals with both marriage and war—the deferral of a new husband from military service (24:5). The innermost frame moves from a law on war, the sanctity of the military camp (23:10–15), to a law on marriage, the prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried in the interim (24:1–4). Once again, the careful arrangement of these individual laws on marriage and war within the structural design of the whole of 21:10–25:19 is evident. Another way of looking at the structure of the laws of 21:10–25:19 within the framework of laws dealing with matters of sex and war is to include all of the laws in a menorah pattern: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Family laws, true religion, and illicit mixtures (17 laws) 21:15–22:29 C Marriage and war (3 laws) 23:1–15 X Laws on social ethics (5 laws) 23:16–26 C′ Marriage and war (2 laws) 24:1–5 B′ Protecting the poor and vulnerable (12 laws) 24:6–25:16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression (YHWH’s Holy War) 25:17–19 The framework in this structure (A, X, A′) moves from a law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14), to the concluding reminder to remember to hate the Amalekites because of their military aggression at the outset of YHWH’s Holy War in the exodus from Egypt (25:17–19), with a group of five laws on matters of social ethics in the center (23:16–26). The outermost frame moves from a collection of seventeen laws on matters of social ethics (21:15–22:29), to another collection of twelve laws protecting the poor and vulnerable (24:6–25:16). Both of these substructures are in turn concentric in nature with laws on true religion at their centers, laws that mean concern for both the mother bird with her young (22:6–7) and fellow human beings (22:8), and in particular with the protection of sojourners, orphans, and widows in our midst (24:17–22). The evidence for the use of the divine-name numbers according to Labuschagne for Reading 6 (21:10–25:19) as a whole reveals the following: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ 21:14 11 + 6 = 17

21:10–14 39 + 31 = 70

(= 5 × 21:10–23 133 + 85 = 218 17) (= 10 × 22:1–12 109 + 61 = 170 17) (= 10 × 22:13–29 170 + 97 = 267 17) (= 7 × 23:1–26 182 + 157 = 339 26) (= 3 × (= 9 × 24:1–9 78 + 75 = 153 26) 17) (= 7 × 24:10–18 65 + 54 = 119 17) 24:19–22 32 + 23 = 55

(= 10 × 25:1–19 160 + 100 = 260 26)

21:10– (= 93 × 929 + 652 = 1,581 25:19 17)

The divine-name numbers 17 and 26 are carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text throughout the sixth reading of the lectionary cycle (21:10–25:19) in a variety of ways.

A. Three Laws on Marriage and Family (21:10–21) 1. Marriage with a Woman Captured in War (21:10–14) Bibliography

Alt, A. “Zu hit ˓ammer.” VT 2 (1952) 153–59. Batto, B. Studies on Women at Mari. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974. 83–84. Buit, M. du. “Quelques contacts bibliques dans les Archives Royales de Mari.” RB 66 (1959) 576–81. Cassuto, U. The Goddess Anath. Tr. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971. 45. Cohen, S. J. D. “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical Judaism.” ConsJud 36 (1982–83) 31– 45. David, M. “Hit ˓ammer.” VT 1 (1951) 219–21. Eph

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Marriage with a Woman Captured in War [(6:7):(6:6):(7:6)]

10 When you go forth to war / against your enemies // 18 2 and YHWH your God / gives him / into your hand 19 3 and you take captive his captives // 9 1_ 11 And you see / among the female captives / 11 2 a woman / beautiful in appearance // 8 2 and you desire her / 7 1 and you would take her to yourself / as a wife // 11 2_ 12 You are to bring her / into your house // 13 2 And she shall shave / her head / 10 2 and she shall pare / her nails // 12 2_ 13 And she shall put off her / captive’s garb / 20 2 and she shall dwell \ in your house / 11 1 and she shall mourn / her father and mother / a full 24 3_ month // And after that / you may come in to her / 14 2 and you shall marry her / 6 1 And she shall be / your wife // 11 2 14 and it shall be / if you no longer have delight in her / 14 2_ Then you shall release her \ outright / 9 1 and you shall surely not sell her / for money // 17 2 You shall not treat her as merchandise / 8 1 _2 9 ס // since / you have humbled her

Notes

your“ ,איבך a. One Heb. MS, printed editions, and Cairo Geniza fragments read.10 ”.your enemies“ ,איביך enemy,” for MT

into your“ ,בידיך b. A few Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and Syr. read.10 ”.into your hand“ ,בידך hands,” for MT

בשׂביה among his captives a woman,” for MT“ ,בשׁביו אשׁה a-a. SP reads.11 ”.among the female captives a woman“ ,אשׁת

and you shall take“ ,וּלְקַחְתָּהּ b-b. One Heb. MS, SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. read.11 ”.and you shall take“ , ְ ו לָ קַ תְ תָּ her,” for MT

”.and she shall shove“ ,וגלחה a-a. LXX reads 2 sg., “you shall shove,” for MT.12

and she shall“ ,ועשׂתה b-b. LXX reads 2 sg., “you shall do [i.e., pare],” for MT.12 do [i.e., pare].” 13.a. LXX reads 2 sg.

13.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 14.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ”.she shall be sold“ ,( תִ מָּ כֵ ר =) b-b. LXX reads πραθήσεται.14

”.you shall treat contemptuously“ ,( תְ ﬠַ מֵּ ר =) c-c. LXX reads ἀθετήσεις.14

Form/Structure/Setting Though the opening law in the series here deals with warfare, which is the subject of the laws in Deut 20, its primary focus is on marital relations, not the war in which the woman was captured. It is one of two laws that deal with both marriage and war, the other being the deferral of a new husband from military service in 24:5. The sequence of laws on the subjects of marriage and war play a primary role as markers in the literary structure of 21:10–25:19 as a whole. The law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14) also serves as an introduction to a series of three laws on the subject of marriage and family, which include the laws on the right of the firstborn in a polygamous family (21:15–17) and the punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18–21). The boundaries of the passage in 21:10–14 are marked by the sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 9 and 14. Though no further indications of internal structure are given, the law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14) may be outlined on the basis of content: A When you see among the female captives a beautiful woman 21:10–11a B And you desire to take her to yourself as a wife 21:11b X Shave her head, pare her nails, and keep her for a full month 21:12–13a B′ Then you may take her as your wife 21:13b A′ If she no longer pleases you, you must release her outright 21:14 The outer frame in this structure moves from an initial desire on the part of a soldier to take to wife a beautiful woman from among the female captives (vv 10–11a) to a ruling regarding the woman’s future should the man change his mind at some later date (v 14). The inner frame moves from a statement of the man’s desire to marry the woman (v 11b) to the granting of permission to do so (v 13b). The focus of attention at the center is the actual treatment the prospective bride is to receive. The woman is to be taken into the man’s house for a “trial” month, during which time her physical beauty is minimalized by shaving her head, cutting her nails short, and having her “mourn her father and mother a full month” (vv 12–13a). If the man can live with a wailing and relatively unattractive woman for a month and still want her as his wife, perhaps the marriage will last. Carmichael interprets the law of the female captive here in relation to the narrative of Laban’s pursuit of Jacob in Gen 31:25–50. He argues that there was hostility between Jacob and Laban, “as evidenced by Laban’s cheating Jacob and the latter’s response” (LNB, 140). When Laban caught up with Jacob and his family at Mizpah, he compared Jacob’s actions to the taking of women captives in war: “What have you done, that you have cheated me, and carried away my daughters like captives of the sword?” (Gen 31:26). “The remarkable reference about the Israelite’s beholding among the captives a ”has someone like Rachel in mind (יפת תאר) ’woman ‘beautiful in form (Carmichael, LNB, 141). Moreover, this expression is found only twice in the Pentateuch: in Gen 29:17 (of Rachel) and the law here in Deut 21:11. Rachel’s theft of her father’s household gods may have something to do with the law’s demands that the woman sever contact with her past—shave her head, pare her nails, put off her captive’s garb, and bewail her parents for a month. For a parallel in the Mari texts, in which hair and clothing were removed during a rite symbolizing severance from homeland, see du Buit, RB 66 (1959) 576–77 (cited by Carmichael, LNB, 141 n. 5). A further indication that details in the story of Jacob and the daughters of Laban were shaped by the content of the law in Deut 22:10–14 is the consideration given to the possibility of separation, as Carmichael has shown (LNB, 141–42). Laban pressed Jacob to agree that in their life in the land of Canaan his daughters would not be “humbled” He did not want Jacob to take any wives in addition to Rachel and Leah (Gen .( ﬠִ נָּ ה) 31:50). As the law states, Laban did not want the “captive women” to be “humbled” should their Israelite husband “no longer have delight in them” and seek to rid ( ﬠִ נָּ ה) himself of them. The evidence of the use of the divine-name numbers from Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” reveals little for 21:10–14 other than the fact that v 14 is made up of 17 words.

Comment 12–13 The acts of “shaving her head, paring her nails, and putting off her captive’s garb” are usually interpreted as part of the woman’s mourning process. “The shaving of the head and putting off of the clothes is referred to in the Mari texts where it has the purpose of getting rid of everything that would remind the captive of home” (Mayes [1981] 303; cf. du Buit, RB 66 [1959] 576–77). Rabbi Akiba thought they were intended to make the woman less attractive to her captor (Sifre 212; see Tigay [1996] 194, 381 n. is simply the clothes the woman was (שׂמלת שׁביה) ”The “captive’s garb .(29 wearing when taken captive. The woman is to “mourn her father and mother a full month,” which in the lunar calendar of ancient Israel was thirty days (cf. the thirty days mourning for the death of Aaron in Num 20:29 and Moses in Deut 34:8). to send (away),” is used of freeing slaves (15:12) and for“ ,שׁלח The verb 14 explains the (תתעמר) ”divorce (22:19, 29). The translation “treat her as merchandise The traditional .(מכר לא־תמכרנה) ”previous clause, “you shall surely not sell her as “to enslave” is an ancient conjecture. The term appears only תתעמר translation of appears in Ps 129:7 with the meaning “to עמר here and in 24:7. The piel of the verb row of fallen grain.” The precise meaning of the“ ,עמירbind sheaves,” from remains uncertain. Alt has argued from a cognate noun in the Ugaritic התעמר verb texts, which designates a group of people liable for military service, that it means the action of one who claims unlimited power of disposal over others (VT 2 [1952] 153– 59). The translation here follows that of David (VT 1 [1951] 219–21) and Hulst (Old which is translated , ﬠִ נָּ ה Testament Translation Problems, 16). The piel verbal form here as “you have humbled her,” carries the sense of “doing violence to” in sexual matters (cf. 22:24, 29). The woman is brought low by the circumstances of the forceful loss of her family and her former way of life.

Explanation The law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14), like the law that grants military deferral to a new husband (24:5), combines matters pertaining to war and sex. The law here concerns the matter of a captive female from a distant city, according to the rule in 20:10–15, not to marriage with a Canaanite woman, which is forbidden. The reasoning behind the specific terms of the law in 21:10–14 is not spelled out. With her head shaved and nails pared (v 12), her “captive’s garb” was discarded and the woman was to “mourn her father and her mother a full month,” after which the man was permitted to marry her (v 13). Reasons for these actions have been conjectured through the years, as illustrated by the comments of Thomas Scott long ago: “Considering things thus coolly, we may perhaps before it be too late, have our admiration changed into disgust, and many fatal consequences may be prevented.… Irregular indulgences frequently end in dislike and ill-treatment of the very object that was inordinately loved!” (Holy Bible [1823] 539). The shaving of the head, the paring of the nails, and the changing of clothing signified a change in status and the taking on of a new life in another culture. But even this is not enough to assure a lasting union. The concluding note about the man no longer having delight in the woman with the command to “release her outright” (v 14) is easily misinterpreted. A surface reading suggests that a husband, at least in some circumstances, can get rid of his wife for trivial reasons. In light of the sanctity of marriage, as taught elsewhere in the Bible, we know that this is not a proper conclusion to draw from this text. Maxwell states that he prefers “to think that the phrase “if you have no delight in her” refers to the new wife’s refusal to accept her husband’s spiritual values … since her previous culture and religion have been foreign to Israel” ([1987] 251). Though there is some truth in this opinion, it moves beyond the evidence in the text itself, which presents no reasons for the change in the man’s attitude. The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful. In ancient Jewish practice, a formal procedure was introduced in which the woman in such circumstances agreed to convert to Judaism. Even so, the rabbis discouraged such marriages, notes Tigay, regarding “such unions as motivated by lust and [they] considered the present law as a concession to the likelihood that they would take place whether permitted or not. In their view, verses 12–13 are designed to delay and, ideally, discourage such a marriage by making the woman unattractive” ([1996] 194). One of the lessons to be learned from the law on marriage with a woman captured in war is the importance of a husband and wife sharing common spiritual values as the proper basis of a lasting union. We would do well to follow the example here in deliberately delaying commitment in marriage for a period of time to assure that the decision to marry is not based primarily on physical lust.

2. Right of the Firstborn Son in a Polygamous Family (21:15–17) Bibliography

Albertz. R. “Das Überleben der Familie Sichern.” Lutherische Monatshefte 25 (1986) 401– 5. Carmichael, C. M. “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandals as a Female Gesture of Contempt.” JBL 96 (1977) 321–36, esp. 325. ———. LNB. 142–50. ———. “Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law: The Evidence ofDeut 21:15–22:5.” JBL 101 (1982) 505–20, esp. 506–11. ———. Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Press, 1979. 22–30.Causse, A. “L’Idéal politique et social du Deutéronome: La fraternité d’Israel.” RHPR 13 (1933) 289–323. Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. 1947. 5–7. ——— .“The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 41–43. Eybers, I. H. “Some Examples of Hyperbole in Biblical Hebrew.” Semitics 1 (1970) 38–49. Fohrer, G.“Twofold Aspects of Hebrew Words.” In FS D. Winton Thomas. 1968. 99. Goetze, A. “Number Idioms in Old Babylonian.” JNES 5 (1946) 202. Goodenough, E. R. The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt. 1929. Repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968. 56–67. Granqvist, H. Marriage Conditions. 1931–35. 2:194.Henninger, J. “Zum Erstgeborenenrecht bei den Semiten.” In Festschrift Werner Caskel zum siebzigsten Geburtslag. Ed. E. Gräf. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 162– 83.Horst, F. “Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum (Besitz).” In FS W. Rudolph. 1961. 135– 56. Kippenberg, H. G. Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Jud äa. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. 26. Mendelsohn, I. “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son.” BASOR 156 (1959) 38–40. Milgrom, J. “Firstborn.”IDBSup. 337–38. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London; New York: Longmans, Green, 1944. 263. Rabinowitz, J. J. “Marriage Contracts in Ancient Egypt in the Light of Jewish Sources.” HTR 46 (1953) 91–97. Rubin, N. “On the Social Significance of the bekhor in the Bible.” BMik 33 (1988) 162–63 (Heb.).Skaist, A. J. “Inheritance Laws and Their Social Background.” JAOS 95 (1975) 424–47. Snaith, N. H. “The Daughters of Zelophehad.” VT 16 (1966) 124–27. Vaux, R. de. The Early History of Israel. Tr. D. Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. 250–51. Watson, P. “A Note on the ‘Double Portion’ of Deut 21, 17 and 2 Ki 2,9.” ResQ 8 (1965) 70–75. Yaron, R. “On Divorce in Old Testament Times.” RIDA 4 (1957) 117–28.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Right of the Firstborn in a Polygamous Family [(4:6):(5:5):(6:4)]

15 When a man has / two wives / 15 2 the one loved / and the other hated / 19 2_ And they both have borne him sons / 12 1 the loved one / and the hated one // 14 2 and it happens / the firstborn is the son / of the hated one // 18 3_ 16 And it shall be / on the day / 8 2 he gives as inheritance to his sons / what he / has // 18 3_ He must not / 5 1 treat as firstborn / the son of the loved one / 13 2 in the presence of the son of the hated one / the firstborn // 15 2_

17 Rather / the firstborn son of the hated one he shall recognize / 17 2 by giving him / 5 1 a double portion / of all that belongs / to him // 17 3_ For he / is the first issue of his procreative power / 12 2 _2 10 ס // to him / belongs the right of the firstborn

Notes

”,the one“ ,האחת for MT ואחת and אחת a. One Heb. MS and SP read.15 .and the (other) one,” omitting the def. art“ ,והאחת and

the hated one,” with no change in“ ,לשׂניאה for MT לשׂנואה b. SP reads.15 meaning. 17.a. The waw-conj. is added in SP, LXX, Syr., and Vg.

Form/Structure/Setting In the larger literary structure of 21:10–23:1, the two laws on children (21:15–21) are set over against five laws on marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–29). The two laws on children have to do with inheritance rights on the part of the firstborn in a polygamous family (21:15–17) and the punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18–21). The first, dealing with inheritance rights and the subject of property, corresponds with the eighth commandment, prohibiting stealing. The second, the matter of the insubordinate son, has to do with the fifth commandment, requiring parental respect. The boundaries of the law on the inheritance right of the firstborn son in a polygamous family (21:15–17) are marked by the sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 14 and 17. The law may be outlined on the basis of its content: A A man has sons of two wives, one loved and one unloved 21:15 B When he assigns his property to his sons 21:16a X He is not permitted to ignore the one who is firstborn 21:16b B′ The firstborn is to receive a double portion 21:17a A′ To the eldest son belongs the right of the firstborn 21:17b The legal situation is presented in the outer frame: when a man has sons by two wives (v 15), the right of the firstborn belongs to the eldest son (v 17b). The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that the man loves one of his wives more than the other. The inner frame expands the legal situation by spelling out what the law entails. When a man assigns his property to his sons (v 16a), he must give a double portion to the firstborn (v 17b). The point is reinforced in the center of the structure (v 16b): the man is not permitted to ignore the rights of the firstborn, even if he has a favorite son by the wife he loves the most whom he desires to recognize as his primary heir. Though Carmichael has argued that the laws in Deuteronomy were written later than the narratives of the Torah and the Former Prophets and were shaped by that very tradition (LNB, 16–17), the evidence here points in the opposite direction. The laws of Deuteronomy were foundational, and the narrative tradition appears to be shaped by what is later called midrash. They are stories intended to elucidate a sacred “canonical” text, in this case the collection of laws in Deut 12–26, which in turn were written as a midrash of sorts on the Ten Commandments. What God revealed to Moses on was the “acorn,” which contained the genetic code, as it were, that enabled it to grow in the course of time so as to become the “mighty oak tree” we know as the Bible. Though Jacob’s transfer of the birthright from his eldest son Reuben to his favorite son Joseph portrays Jacob denying the right of the firstborn, Carmichael argues that the story of Jacob and Esau brings out the issue more clearly (LNB, 142–45), for Jacob “steals” the birthright from his elder brother Esau, with the connivance of his mother Rachel. The story in Genesis then moves on to broach another question: When does a son deserve to be cut off by his parents? (LNB, 146–50). This is the subject of the second of the two family laws in Deut 21:18–21, the punishment of a rebellious son. It is his mother’s favoritism toward his brother Jacob that unjustly deprived Esau of his birthright. But the story moves on as Esau’s situation turned into an offense comparable to that of Reuben’s sin with his father’s concubines, for Esau married two Hittite wives, who “made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen 26:35). The story of Jacob’s problem with his firstborn son Reuben in Gen 29:31–32; 35:22; and 49:3–4 illustrates the law in matters of detail, as Carmichael has shown (LNB, 142– 45). Jacob had two wives—Rachel, the loved wife, and Leah, the unloved. Reuben was the firstborn son of Leah. Rachel’s firstborn, Joseph, was Jacob’s eleventh son; and six of Joseph’s older brothers were the sons of Leah, the unloved wife. Reuben forfeited his firstborn status by lying with his father’s concubine (35:22). In his final blessing of his twelve sons, Jacob acknowledged Reuben as his firstborn (49:3); but he gave the chief blessing to Joseph (49:22–26). Though we can see why Reuben forfeited the right of the firstborn in this instance, the question remains as to why the other brothers were passed over. If there were extenuating circumstances, the account in Genesis does not record them. As Jacob himself attained his brother’s birthright fraudulently, he passed on the birthright of his own firstborn son in an improper manner to the son of his favored wife. Here Deuteronomy declares that his action was contrary to God’s law. Though Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” for 21:15–17 reveals no evidence on the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26, the pattern within its larger context in 21:10–23 may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

21:15–17 37 + 22 = 59 21:18 12 + 5 = 17

21:18–23 57 + 32 = 89

21:10–23 133 + 85 (= 5 × 17) = 218

It is only when vv 15–17 are taken within its larger context that the use of the divine- name number 17 becomes clear, for there are a total of 85 (= 5 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ in 21:10–23. There are also 17 words in v 18 and a total of 32 words glory,” the presence“ ,כבודafter ʾatnāḥ in vv 18–23. Since 32 is the numerical value of of 32 and 17 here signifies the “glory of YHWH.”

Comment

[אהובה] ”The expression “the one loved and the other unloved” (lit. the “loved 15 as an idiom for the favored and the unfavored wife is found ([שׂנואה] ”and the “hated in Arabic (Granqvist, Marriage Conditions, 2:194), Egyptian (A. Erman, cited by Rabinowitz, HTR 46 [1953] 94 n. 12), and Akkadian (Gilgamesh Epic 12:23–26, 42–45; see Tigay [1996] 382 n. 39). Biblical examples include Jacob’s wives Rachel and Leah (Gen 29:30–31) and ’s wives Hannah and Peninah (1 Sam 1:5). functions as a rhythmic bridge connecting the two לא יוכל The phrase 17–16 halves of v 16. When read with what precedes it, the meaning is essentially “he must not prevail” (cf. Gen 30:8) by exerting his own will contrary to the law. When read with what follows, it is translated “He must not treat as firstborn …” by assigning him “a lit. “two mouths”). The assigning of this right of the , פי שׁנים) ”double portion firstborn has been interpreted in different ways. The early versions and Ben Sira (Sir 12:5; 18:32) took this to mean “double portion,” but as Tigay has shown ([1996] 195– 96, 382 n. 43), this may reflect postbiblical exegesis. The estate was divided into shares equal to the number of sons plus one, in Assyria, Nuzi, and Ptolemaic Egypt (see Tigay [1996] 382 n. 44; Mendelsohn, BASOR 156 [1959] 38–40; and Milgrom, IDBSup, 337– -has the meaning “two פי שׁנים It should also be noted that in Zech 13:8the phrase .(38 thirds” (cf. also 2 Kgs 2:9), and in Egyptian “two mouths” means “two-thirds” (A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. [London: Oxford UP, 1957] 197, 452). Thus the law here may have meant that the firstborn is to inherit two-thirds. Tigay ([1996]196) cites an adoption contract from Mari that stipulates that the chief heir would receive two-thirds of the estate no matter how many other heirs there might be (ARM 8:1; cf ANET, 545, no. 13, where J. J. Finkelstein translates “double share”). As Tigay has noted, this is still more generous to younger sons than was the case in medieval England, where the chief heir received the entire estate ([1996] 196). Similar laws in Scandinavia were responsible for the Vikings of the eighth to tenth centuries C.E. who were primarily “younger sons” who were obliged to find their “inheritance” abroad as pirates. he shall recognize,” is a technical term for legal acknowledgment“ ,יכיר The verb (Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, 5–7). The phrase “first issue of his procreative power” appears elsewhere as a description of the firstborn (Gen (ראשׁית אנו) 49:3 [Reuben], Pss 78:51; 105:36 [firstborn of Egypt]). The translation “procreative power” rather than “strength” follows Fohrer (FS D. Winton Thomas, 99) and Craigie ([1976] 283 n. 20). In the Bible the preferential treatment of the firstborn is also referred ”which means literally “primogeniture ,(הבכרה) ”to as “the right of the firstborn (Rubin, BMik 33 [1988] 162–63). “The purpose of granting one son a preferential share may have been to enable him to bear additional responsibilities as head of the family, such as managing the estate on behalf of all the survivors, providing for survivors who were minors, bearing the costs of burying and mourning for deceased parents, or simply to enable him to carry on his father’s name in dignity” (Tigay [1996] 196).

Explanation Although polygamy was practiced in ancient Israel, without exception it is also depicted as an occasion for family trouble. The law of the right of the firstborn (Deut 21:15–17) was given to limit the extent of that trouble. The story of Adam and Eve presents monogamy as the divine ideal for marriage (Gen 2:20–24). In sharp contrast, the story of Jacob and his two wives illustrates the problem of polygamy: “So Jacob went into Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah” (Gen 29:30). Jacob’s preference here reflects the human condition, for rivalry between the wives in such a polygamous relationship is inevitable. This rivalry extends to the children in a polygamous family as well, particularly in the matter of the disposition of property. The law on the right of the firstborn (21:15– 17) prohibits disinheriting the eldest son without just cause. When a man settles his estate, a child must not fare the worse for his mother’s unhappiness in being the less favored wife. This principle regarding favoritism within the family applies in monogamous relationship today as well, in the sense that parents should give their children what is due them without showing partiality. Parents should show no more differentiation in dispensing affections among their children than God makes in dispensing his grace among his children. The reference to a “double portion” of the inheritance (v 17) is not an instance of favoritism but a legal right. The same phrase appears in 2 Kgs 2:9, when Elisha asks Elijah, “Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” Elisha is asking Elijah to declare him to be his spiritual heir and successor in terms of the law of the right of inheritance in a polygamous family. By law the firstborn receives a more generous portion of the inheritance in ancient Israel, however one interprets the specific meaning ”.of 21:17, which are rendered here as “double portion פי שׁנים of the Hebrew words

3. The Punishment of an Insubordinate Son (21:18–21) Bibliography

Bellefontaine, E. “Deuteronomy 21:18–21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son.” JSOT 13 (1979) 13–31. Benjamin, D. C. Deuteronomy and City Life. 1983.Buchholz, J. Die ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium. 1988. Callaway, P. R. “Deut 21:18–21: Proverbial Wisdom and Law.” JBL 103 (1984) 341–52. Carroll, R. P. “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society.” ZAW 89 (1977) 176–204. Daube, D. “Consortium in Roman and Hebrew Law.” Juridical Review 62 (1950) 73–77. Falk, Z. W. “Sociological Notes on Deuteronomy.” DiIs 3 (1972) 41. Fensham, F. C. “Aspects of Family Law in the in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” DiIs 1 (1969) v–xix., esp. xv. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SLR 19 (1967) 965–66.Hirzel, R. “Die Strafe der Steinigung.” Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909) 223–66., esp. 243. Hoppe, L. J. “Elders and Deuteronomoy: A Proposal.” EglT 14 (1983) 259–72., esp. 262 Klíma, F. “La Patria Potestas dans les nouveaux fragments législatifs sumériens.” In Symbolae Iuridicae et historicae Martino David Dedicatae. 2 vols. Ed. J. A. Ankum et al. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 2:1–8. Lohfink, N. “Die ältesten Israels und der Bund zum Zusammenhang von Dtn 5, 23; 26, 17–19; 27, 1.9f und 31, 9.” BN 67 (1993) 26–42. Marcus, D. “Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” JANESCU 13 (1981) 31–52. Perlitt, L. “Der Vater im Alten Testament.” In Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte. Ed. H. Tellenbach. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976. 76–78. Reviv, H. The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Rofé, A.“Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant.” BMik 22 (1976/77) 19–36 (Heb.; Eng. summary, 155–56).

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Punishment of an Insubordinate Son [(5:4):(5:5):(4:5)]

18 When a man has / a son / who is rebellious and defiant / 18 3 who does not obey / 10 1 the voice of his father / 7 1_ Or the voice of his mother // though they chastise him / 17 2 indeed he does not listen / to them // 9 2_ 19 His father and his mother / shall seize him // 16 2 and they shall bring him / 11 1 to the elders of his city / at the gates of his place // 17 2 20 And they shall say / to the elders of his city / 14 2 “This son of ours \ is rebellious and defiant / 15 1 he does not listen / to our voice // 17 2_ He is a glutton / and a drunkard” // 9 2 21 and all the men of his city / shall stone him with stones / 23 2_ And he shall die / 4 1 and you shall purge the evil / from your midst // 14 2 _2 17 ס // and all Israel / shall hear (of it) and they shall fear

Notes

”.and defiant“ ,ומרה and fat, well-fed,” for MT“ ,ומרא a. SP read.18 18.b. The waw-conj. is read here as emphatic. 19.a. A few Heb. MSS and SP omit waw-conj. 19.b. Tg. and Tg. Ps.-J. add byt dyn. Prosodic analysis favors MT.

”.to the men“ ,אל־אנשׁי a. SP and LXX (τοῖς ἀνδράσιν) read.20

20.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ parvum at conj. ”.and defiant“ ,ומרה and fat, well-fed,” for MT“ ,ומרא c. SP read.20

”.all“ ,כל a. LXX omits.21 21.b. LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. read 2 pl.

(והנשׁארים =) ”(c-c. LXX reads καὶ οἱ ἐπίλοιποι, “and the rest (of them.21 ”.and all Israel“ ,וכל־ישׂראל with 19:20 for MT

Form/Structure/Setting The boundaries of the law on the punishment of an insubordinate son (Deut 21:18– 21) are marked with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the beginning and the end, and by the distinctive summary command to “purge the evil from your midst,” which is repeated elsewhere in similar contexts. This law may be outlined on the basis of its content: A A man has a rebellious son who “does not listen” 21:18 B His parents shall bring him before the elders of his city 21:19 X They shall declare: “He is a glutton and a drunkard” 21:20 B′ All the men of his city shall stone him to death 21:21a A′ You shall purge the evil from your midst 21:21b In this structure the outer frame moves from a presentation of the legal situation in which “a man has a son who is rebellious and defiant, who does not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother” (v 18), to a summary command to “purge the evil from your midst” (v 21b). The inner frame presents the legal procedure to be followed: the parents shall bring their son before the elders of the city for judgment at the gates of the city (v 19); and, if he is found guilty, “all the men of the city shall stone him to death” (v 21a). The declaration of guilt stands in the structural center: “he is a glutton and a drunkard” (v 20b). Within rabbinic Judaism, the law of the rebellious son was interpreted so narrowly that it was virtually impossible for it to be carried out, as Tigay’s summary of the halakic reading suggests: “the law applies for only the three months after a son turns thirteen and only if he has ravenously eaten semi-cooked meat and drunk partially mixed wine, in the company of a group that does not include one decent person, and not on a religious occasion; paying for the food with money misappropriated from his father; only if both parents are living and are not deaf, mute, blind, lame, or maimed in the hand; and only if both agree to prosecute him” ([1996] 382 n. 52). Carmichael calls attention to Esau’s ravenous appetite for meat in the story of Jacob and Esau (LNB, 146–50). Though Esau is certainly not presented as the rebellious and defiant son of Deut 21:18–21, Carmichael argues that he had the potential for that disreputable state. Esau stands as an example of a wayward son who changed his ways, for he decided not to marry another Canaanite woman and sought out an Ishmaelite instead in an effort to please his parents (Gen 28:6–9). D. N. Freedman has written a significant book (The Nine Commandments: Uncovering the Hidden Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible [New York: Doubleday, 2000]) that demonstrates that a master editor compiled what Freedman calls the Primary History (the Torah and the Former Prophets). Evidence for this conclusion is found in a series of episodes distributed book by book through eight successive books in the Hebrew Bible that chart the violation of the first nine commandments one by one. The series starts with the sin of national apostasy (worship of the golden calf,Exod 32), which violates the first and second commandments, and concludes with the sin of bearing false witness (the ninth commandment) in the story of Naboth in 1 Kgs 21. Because covetousness lies behind all the crimes committed, each act implicitly breaks the tenth commandment as well. The Ten Commandments constitute the essence of the covenant relationship established between God and the people of Israel at Mount Sinai. The pattern of defiance of that covenant with God led inexorably to the downfall of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the temple, and the banishment of survivors from the promised land. The message is clear to a community in the Babylonian exile that their fate is not the result of God’s abandoning them but a consequence of their abandonment of God. The true people of God are those who maintain the covenant commitment to God by observing the Ten Commandments. Genesis does not include an episode in this series because the covenant at Mount Sinai, in which the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments are given to Moses, takes place later—in the book of Exodus. The commandments and their violations within the Primary History are as follows: Commandment Text Episode

Do not worship 1 Exod 32 Golden-calf incident other gods 2 Worship no idols Exod 32 Golden-calf incident Do not take Lev Stoning to death for sin of 3 YHWH’s name in 24:10–17 blasphemy vain Num Stoning to death for 4 Keep the Sabbath 15:32–36 violating the Sabbath Deut Stoning to death of 5 Honor your parents 21:18–21 stubborn and rebellious son Josh 7:20– Stoning to death of Achan 6 You shall not steal 26 and his family for theft You shall not Judg Murder of ’s 7 murder 20:34–48 concubine 8 You shall not 2 Sam 11 David and Bathsheba commit adultery You shall not bear Ahab, Jezebel, and 9 1 Kgs 21 false witness Naboth’s vineyard

The implications of Freedman’s study, so far as the canonical process in ancient Isreal is concerned, are profound. The law of punishment of an insubordinate son (Deut 21:18– 21) is an essential element in this series of episodes that extends through eight successive books in the canon of the Hebrew Bible (including Deuteronomy). Since Freedman argues that these episodes appear to be the work of a single editorial hand, this raises interesting questions. The fact that Labuschagne found little of interest in the text of Deut 21:18–21 in his numerical analysis lends some support to the possibility of this particular law being a subsequent editorial insertion. On the other hand, the grand totals for the numbers in Reading 6 (Deut 21:10–25:19) and in the book of Deuteronomy as a whole represent figures determined by the divine-name numbers 17 and 26. This fact indicates that the process of adjusting the text to achieve this remarkable phenomenon continued after the initial work of Freedman’s “master editor.” If that editor is to be identified with Baruch in the time of the prophet Jeremiah, as Freedman suggests (Nine Commandments, 93–97, 168), the editorial process continued well into the period of the Babylonian exile (ca. 587–538 B.C.E.) and perhaps the subsequent Persian era as well. One of the persons involved in the earlier period of this process may be Baruch’s brother Seraiah, who apparently went to Babylon with Jeremiah’s writings in ca. 593 B.C.E. (Jer 51:59–64). The circle of scribes (“counters”) in Babylon who labored in the canonical process within ancient Israel probably included the prophet Ezekiel as well.

Comment 18 On the “rebellious and defiant” child, see Marcus, JANESCU 13 (1981) 31–52. The discipline the parents inflict on their rebellious son is translated here in the general ”,It could also be rendered “they flog him .(ויסרו אתו) ”sense of “chastise him following both rabbinic interpretation and the meaning in 22:18. 19 The text states that both “his father and his mother shall seize him,” which indicates that the two must agree to this action. According to Josephus (Ant. 16.11.2 §§365–66), Herod I used this law as a pretext for killing two of his sons (see Tigay [1996] 382 n. 55). On the city gates as a place for litigation, see the Comment on 17:8. 20 The charge that the son “is a glutton and a drunkard” appears to be proverbial in nature, as a typical example of insubordination (cf. Prov 23:20–21; 28:7). 21 The statement that “all the men of his city shall stone him with stones” does not mention the parents, perhaps to demonstrate that they do not have the power of life and to stone,” does not“ ,רגם death over their children (so Tigay [1996] 197). The verb appear elsewhere in Deuteronomy, though it is used elsewhere in the Torah (Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14, 23; Num 15:35) and in Josh 7:25 of the stoning of Achan and his to stone,” is used instead). On “purge the evil from“ ,סקל household (cf. 13:10, where your midst,” see the Comment on 13:6.

Explanation Since there is no record in the Bible that the law of the insubordinate son (Deut 21:18–21) was ever enforced, it is safe to conclude that the primary purpose of this law was pedagogical—that “all Israel shall hear and fear” (v 21). Maxwell observes that a person is confronted with his own disobedience to biblical commands, he or she is more likely to ‘hear and sneer’ than to ‘hear and fear.’ Why? The church body lacks discipline. The greatest deterrent to sin in a society is that the people love God and fear (reverence) Him by obeying His commands. Love without fear is mush. Fear without love is legalism. Only the two together in proper balance will bring about the obedience required by God” ([1987] 253). Respect for and obedience to parents were of vital importance in ancient Israel. In the Book of the Covenant, a son who strikes his father or mother, or who curses them, “shall be put to death” (Exod 21:15, 17; cf. also Lev 20:9); and the covenant curses of Deut 27:16 include “anyone who dishonors father or mother.” The law here concerns a completely hardened and worthless son. In his comments on this law some three hundred years ago, Matthew Henry said of the insolent son, “If he carry himself proudly and insolently toward his parents, contemn their authority, slight their reproofs and admonitions, disobey the express commands they give him for his own good, hate to be reformed by the correction they give him, shame their family, grieve their hearts, waste their substance, and threaten to ruin their estate by riotous living; this is a stubborn and rebellious son” (Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 659). This description shares some of the tendencies of the halakic reading of the law in rabbinic Judaism (see Form/Structure/Setting above), and shows why there is no record of this law ever being enforced. The concluding sentence in the indictment of the insubordinate son, that “he is a glutton and a drunkard” (v 20), bears further reflection in applying the meaning of this text in a modern setting. Few evils can match the pervasive power of drunkenness, particularly if this phenomenon is extended to include addiction to drugs other than alcohol. The modern parent of such an insubordinate son may have specific evils in mind quite different from those faced by parents in antiquity. In the words of King Lemuel’s mother, “It is not for kings to drink wine, or … to desire strong drink; lest they drink and forget what has been decreed” (Prov 31:4–5). In principle these words apply to anyone, not just to kings. Drunkenness, whether induced by alcohol or other substance abuse, leads inevitably to disobeying God’s law—with all its necessary consequences. Though the parents are the prosecutors in this instance, they are not themselves permitted to put their children to death. Unlike the law concerning transgression of the covenant in Deut 17:2–7, where “the hand of the witnesses shall be on them as the first to kill them” (v 7), it is “the men of his city” alone who are commanded to stone the insubordinate son (21:21). No mention is made of the participation of the parents in the execution itself. Parents do not have the power of life and death over their children, as was the case in ancient Roman law. Judaism and Christianity do not condone such practices, though neither condemns the occasional parent who is forced to seek civil help in restraining willful children. At the heart of the legislation here lies the need for the stability of the family. Sound family life requires the authority of the parents, upheld by respect for the law. Like disrespect for parents, disrespect for the law breeds contempt for discipline in general, whether divine or human, and the ultimate breakdown of society itself. At the same time, we do well to remember that the restraint of laws can never be so effective in the inculcation of parental respect as conversion of the heart, and the lovingkindness that comes from the enabling Spirit of God within. B. Ten Laws on “True Religion” and Illicit Mixtures (21:22–22:12) 1. Treatment of the Body of an Executed Criminal (21:22–23) Bibliography Armstrong, G. T. “The Cross in the Old Testament according to Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Cappadocian Fathers.” In Theologia Crucis, Signum Crucis: FS E. Dinkler. Ed. C. Andresen and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1979. 17–38. Bernstein, M. ,A Study in Early Jewish Exegesis.” JQR 74 (1983) 21–45. Betz :כי קללת אלהים תלוי“ .J O. “Die Bedeutung der Qumranschriften für die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments.” BK 40 (1985) 54–64. Brichto, H. C. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. 1963. 191–95. Fish, T. “War and Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia.” BJRL 23 (1939) 397. Greenberg, M.“Hanging.” IDB 1:522. Hengel, M. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCMPress, 1977. Holzmeister, U. “De Christi Crucifixione quid e Deut 21, 22s. et Gal 3, 13 Consequatur.” Bib 27 (1946) 18–29. Jacob, E. “Die altassyrischen Gesetze und ihr Verhältnis zu den Gesetzen des Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 41 (1925) 384–86. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1986. 120–26. Kooy, V. H. “Impalement.” IDB 2:690. Kuhn, H.-W. “Jesus als Gekreuzigter in der Frühchristlichen Verkündigung bis zur Mitte der 2. Jahrhunderts.” ZTK 72 (1975) 33–35. Lewis, T. J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. 1989. 49–51.Mendenhall, G. E. The Tenth Generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974. 119–21. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law. 1970. 25–26. Rosso, L. “Dt 21, 22: Contributo del Rotolo del Tempio alla Valutazione di una Variante Medievale dei Settante.” RevQ 34 (1977) 231–36. Saggs, H. W. F. “Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period.” Iraq 25 (1963) 149–50. Schwartz, D. R. “Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion.” JBL 102 (1983) 259– 68.Tuckett, C. M. “Deuteronomy 21, 23 and Paul’s Conversion.” In L’Apôtre Paul. Ed. A. Vanhoye. BETL 73. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1986. 345–50. Unnik, W. C. van.“Der Fluch des Gekreuzigten: Deut 21, 23 in der Deutung Justinus des Märtyrers.” In Theologia Crucis, Signum Crucis: FS E. Dinkler. Ed. C. Andresen and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1979. 483–99. Wilcox, M. “ ‘Upon the Tree’—Deut 21:22–23 in the New Testament.” JBL 96 (1977) 85–99.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Treatment of the Body of an Executed Criminal [(4:4):(4:4)]

22 And when it happens that a man \ is guilty / 10 1 of a capital offense \ and he is put to death // 10 1 and you hang him up / on a gibbet // 13 2_ 23 His body shall not remain overnight / on the gibbet / 16 2 but you shall surely bury him / on that day / 17 2_ For accursed of God / is a hanging person // 13 2 and you shall not so defile / your soil / 13 2 _4 15 ס // that / YHWH [ ] / is giving you / as an inheritance

Notes 22.a. One Heb. MS, SP, LXXN, and Vg. omit waw-conj. 22.b. Replacing rĕbîa˓ with a conj. accent to achieve prosodic balance in terms of the distribution of accentual stress units.

22.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. ,עץ the tree,” for MT“ ,העץ d. One Heb. MS, SP, LXX, Tg., and Tg. Ps.-J. read.22 “a tree [i.e., gibbet].”

,.the tree [i.e“ ,העץ a tree,” for MT“ ,עץ a. One Heb. MS and LXX read.23 gibbet].”

.a hanged (man),” with no change in meaning“ ,תלוי for MT תלאי b-b. SP reads.23 all who are hanged on a“ ,כל תלוי על עץ =) LXX reads πᾶς κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου tree”). The addition may have been caused by the need to compensate in terms of your God,” in the“ ,אלהיך prosodic balance for the secondary addition of the word second half of this verse. See discussion below under Form/Structure/Setting.

,תטמא c-c. Reading 2 pl. with LXX and Tg. Ps.-J. as lectio difficilior for MT.23 “you [sg.] shall (not) defile.”

your God,” as a secondary expansion of the text (see“ ,אלהיך d. Reading.23 discussion under Form/Structure/Setting).

Form/Structure/Setting From a law on the inheritance rights of the firstborn son and one in which a son loses his rights because his conduct requires his execution, Moses moves on to an aspect of the death penalty itself. If the sentence has been carried out and the body has been exposed for public view, so that “all Israel shall hear and fear” YHWH (21:21), the corpse must be removed and buried before nightfall. Failure to do this will “defile the land that YHWH your God is giving to you as an inheritance” (v 23). Having raised a humanitarian issue in the treatment of the corpse of an executed criminal, attention shifts to the more general issue of lost livestock (22:1–3), then to a lost garment, and then “any lost thing of your brother’s” (v 3). From there the focus broadens to include coming to the assistance of an animal in need, an ass or an ox that has “fallen on the road” under the burden of its load (v 4). This focus outward “to love your neighbor [including his pack animals] as yourself” is subsequently broadened even further in laws concerning a mother bird and her young (vv 6–7), before shifting back to human beings in risk of injury by falling from a roof without a protective parapet (v 8), and finally to a concluding “riddle” in the law on making tassels the four corners of your cloak” (v 12). The boundaries of the law on the hanging corpse (21:22–23) are marked with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the beginning and the end, and theNumeruswechsel in v 23 as restored from LXX and Tg. Ps.-J. In terms of prosodic structure, the law is in three parts, each of which has six accentual stress units. The law, which is the first of three successive laws dealing with humanitarian issues, may be outlined as follows: A When a man is put to death and his body hanged on a tree 21:22 B You shall not leave the body hanging on the tree 21:23a X You shall bury him on that same day 21:23b B′ For accursed by God is a hanging man 21:23c A′ You shall not defile the land God is giving you 21:23d The law stipulates that the corpse of an executed criminal must be buried on the same day as the execution (v 23b). The inner frame declares that his body is not to be left hanging on a tree (v 23a), for a hanged man is accursed by God (v 23c). The outer frame states the problem in plain words: when a corpse is left hanging on a tree (v 22), the land itself is defiled (v 23d). Carmichael sees a connection between this law and the narratives of Joshua and the corpse of the king of Ai, who was “hanged … on a tree until evening” (Josh 8:29), and the story of the execution of Saul’s sons by the Gibeonites in 2 Sam 21:1–14, when the seven corpses were not buried according to the law (LNB, 150–55). At the outset in the book of Joshua the focus of the exodus is on the conquest of Jericho and Ai. After the conquest of Ai, and immediately before the renewal of the covenant at Shechem on Mount Ebal, Joshua “hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day” (Josh 8:29 NRSV). Immediately following, Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal and erected plastered stones on which a copy of the laws of Deuteronomy were displayed for the people of Israel to read (Josh 8:30–32; cf. Deut 27:2–4). A bit later in the narrative in Joshua we read of the defeat of the five Canaanite kings who hid themselves in the cave at Makkedah (Josh 10:16). Joshua “put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day” (Josh 10:26–27NRSV). In between these two accounts of Joshua and the law of “the hanging corpse” we find the story of the Gibeonites, who tricked Israel into making a covenant treaty with them (Josh 9). Much later, after King Saul “put the Gibeonites to death” (2 Sam 21:1), King David sought to make atonement for Saul’s sin with those who remained in Gibeon. In response to their request, David delivered seven of Saul’s sons (some were grandsons) “into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the LORD” (2 Sam 21:9). But in this instance the bodies were not buried according to the law of Deuteronomy. Thus, according to the laws of Deuteronomy, the land was defiled. Much as the law of an insubordinate son was used in the subsequent literary development of the narrative story of the Torah and Former Prophets to anticipate a surprisingly negative view of “Israel,” so the law of the hanging corpse was used to portray a surprisingly negative assessment of the kingdom of David (Carmichael, LNB, 146–55). At first glance, the evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine- name numbers in 21:22–23 reveals very little. But when the text is modified in light of your God,” in the second half of“ ,אלהיך the prosodic analysis by omitting the word v 23, fascinating results emerge that may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

21:18 12 + 5 = 17 21:20–21 20 + 6 = 26

21:22–23 21 + 13 = 34 (= 2 × 17)

21:18–23 57 + 32 = 89 21:10–23 133 + 85 (= 5 × 17) = 218

21:10–25:19 929 + 652 = 1,581 (= 93 × 17)

In the previous law on the punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18–21), Labuschagne observed that both of the divine-name numbers appear with a total of 17 words in v 18 and 26 words in vv 20–21. When this law is combined with the law on the treatment of the body of an executed criminal (21:22–23) to form a literary unit, we find =) ”glory“ ,כבוד words after ʾatnāḥ, signifying the numerical value of the Hebrew 32 20 + 2 + 6 + 4 = 32). In the larger literary context we now find a total of 85 (= 5 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ in 21:10–23. But of greater significance, we find a total of 1,581 (= 93 × 17) words in the whole of the sixth weekly portion in the lectionary cycle of readings in Deuteronomy (21:10–25:19). In their “commentary” on the Ten Commandments, the scribes (“counters”) of ancient Israel carefully counted the words and arranged them in a manner to bear witness to the divine name YHWH—to the glory of God.

Comment 22 The phrase “hang him up on a gibbet” refers to exposing the body of the executed for public display (cf. Gen 40:19; Josh 10:26; Esth 9:6–14). The body of an executed criminal was sometimes impaled or hanged for public display on a tree or wooden post, as a deterrent to warn others of the consequence of their actions. Though it is common to interpret the action as impaling the body on a stake (so JPS Tanakh), Tigay has shown that this is probably not what is meant: “According to the Mishnah a gibbet (a pole with a horizontal beam) was erected and the dead man’s hands were bound and slung over the beam, leaving his body suspended” ([1996] 198a). See the account of the execution of the sons of Rizpah who were hanged on a mountain, with their bodies left exposed for “the birds of the air to come upon them by day, or the beasts of the field by night” (2 Sam 21:10). 23 The text restricts the practice of exposing the bodies of executed criminals: “His body shall not remain all night on the gibbet; for you shall surely bury him on that day.” Antigone, the classical tragedy by Sophocles (ca. 440 B.C.E.), represents a parallel in the literature of ancient Greece on the seriousness of the curse of being denied a proper burial. The daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta defied her Uncle Creon’s decree and performed the forbidden funeral rites for her dead brother, Polynices, at the cost of her own life. (For Mesopotamian evidence, see Epic of Gilgamesh 12:151–52 [ANET, 99a]; Code of Hammurabi §153 [ANET, 172b]; Middle Assyrian Laws §53 [ANET, 185a]; Prism of Sennacherib ii.37–iii.49 [ANET, 288a]; and Annals of Ashurbanipal iv.65–82 [ANET, 288b]. On other parallels in the Greco-Roman world, see Iliad 23.72– קללת ) ”and Aeneid 6.324–30.) The translation of the phrase “accursed of God 74 has produced comment and speculation through the years. Phillips has (אלהים rendered it “repudiation of God” (Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 25–26), and Fox translates it as “an insult to God” (FBM, 945). It is better to follow the traditional interpretation “accursed of God,” as read by the apostle Paul (see Gal 3:13). Craigie put it well: “The body was not accursed of God because it was hanging on a tree; it was hanging on the tree because it was accursed of God.” Death by execution “was a formal and terminal separation from the community of God’s people. Hence the use of this verse in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians is very forceful. Christ took upon himself the curse of the law, the penalty of death, thereby redeeming us from the curse of the law.… His separation from the family of God made possible our admission to the family of God, because the curse of the broken law—which would have permanently barred admission—had been removed” ([1976] 285–86). alone is used in the laws of Deuteronomy as a reference to אלהים That the term God only here and in 25:18 led Sforno to conclude that it does not mean “God” here but rather the “spirit of the dead man that is affronted by the impaled body” (see Tigay shifts from “you shall become תטמא< ו> The meaning of the verb .(198 [1996] ceremonially unclean” to “you shall pollute” as the reader/hearer moves on to the words which introduce the final clause: “that YHWH your God is ,(את־אדמתך) ”your soil“ giving you as an inheritance.” The statement “you shall not so defile the soil” refers to the fact that a dead body is a source of pollution in terms of ritual uncleanness. Allowing the body to decompose and to be scattered by birds and beasts would spread the impurity.

Explanation The hanging of persons by the neck until dead was not practiced in ancient Israel, but it was common to display the corpse of an executed criminal upon a post or a tree as a spectacle for all to see, so as to strike terror in others. What is prescribed here is that no matter what time of day bodies were so displayed, they must be taken down at sunset and buried, lest the land itself be defiled. According to the law, touching a dead body was defiling; therefore dead bodies must not be left hanging, because, by this same rule, that would defile the land. The statement that “accursed by God is a hanged man” (v 23) is taken up by Paul in reference to the death of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:13), who has “redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.” Though Moses used the words in reference to the ignominious treatment of an executed criminal, he said more than he knew. As Bishop Patrick observed long ago, “this passage is applied to the death of Christ, not only because he bare our sins and was exposed to shame, as these malefactors were that were accursed of God, but because he was in the evening taken down from the accursed tree and buried, (and that by the particular care of the Jews, with an eye to this law, John 19:31) in token that now, the guilt being removed, the law was satisfied, as it was when the malefactor had hanged till sunset; it demanded no more. Then he ceased to be a curse, and those that are his. And as the land of Israel was pure and clean, when the dead body was buried, so the church is washed and cleansed by the complete satisfaction which thus Christ made” (quoted by Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 660).

2. Three Laws on “True Religion”—Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself (22:1–5) Bibliography for 22:1–4

Barbiero, G. L’Asino del Nemico: Rinuncia alla vendetta e amore del nemico nella legislatione dell’Antico Testamento ( Es 23, 4–5; Dt 22, 1–4; Lv 19, 17–18).AnBib 128. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. 131–202, 340–42. Braulik, G. “Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomischen Gesetze: Ihre Abhängigkeit von Levitikus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomium 22, 1–12; 24, 10–22; 25, 13–16.” In Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. Ed. G. Braulik. 1997. 147–82, esp. 160–61.Canaan, T. “The Palestinian Arab House.” JPOS 13 (1933) 41–42, 70. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 41–43. Dempster, S. “The Deuteronomic Formula kî yimmāṣe˒ in the Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: An Evaluation of David Daube’s Theory.” RB 91 (1984) 188– 211.Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 1985. 177–79. Haase, R. “Zur Anzeigepflicht des Finders nach Hethitischem Recht.” WO 12 (1957) 378–81.Huffmon, H. B. “Exodus 23:4–5: A Comparative Study.” In FS J. M. Myers. 1974. 271–78. Lang, B. “Persönlicher Gott und Ortsgott: Über Elementarformen derpersönlichen Frömmigkeit in Israel.” In FS H. Brunner. 1983. 282–89. Lewy, I. “Dating of Covenant Code Sections on Humaneness and Righteousness (Ex xxii 20–26; xxiii 1–9).” VT 7 (1957) 322–26. Stager, L. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985) 12–15. Tigay, J. H. “Some Archaeological Notes on Deuteronomy.” In FS J. Milgrom. 1995. 373–74. Bibliography for 22:5

Epstein, L. M. Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: Bloch, 1948. 64–67, 75– 78. Fichtner, J. “Die Bewältigung heidnischer Vorstellungen und Praktiken in der Welt des Alten Testaments.” In FS F. Baumgärtel. Ed. L. Rost. Erlanger Forschungen A.10. Erlangen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1959. 32. Gaster, T. H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. 316–18. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SLR 19 (1967) 960. Gordon, C. H. “A Note on the Tenth Commandment.” JBR 31 (1963) 208–9.Hoffner, H. A. “Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study.” TynBul 20 (1969) 48–51. ———. “Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity.” JBL 85 (1966) 326–34. Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. 226–30. Licht, H. Sexual Life in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1932. 124–25, 128, 500.Paschen, W.Rein und Unrein: Untersuchungen zur biblischen Wortgeschichte. SANT 24. Munich: Kösel, 1970. 55. Römer, W. H. P. “Randbemerkungen zur Travestie vonDeut. 22, 5.” In Travels in the World of the Old Testament: FS M. A. Beek. Ed. M. Heerma van Voss, P. Houwink ten Cate, and N. van Uchelen. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 16. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974. 217–22.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Returning Lost Animals and Other Property [(8:5):(5:8)]

1 You are not to see your brother’s ox / 13 1 or / his sheep / go astray / and hide yourself / from them // 21 5 you shall take them back / to your brother // 15 2_

2 And if your brother is not near / you / 18 2 and you do not know him // 7 1 you shall bring it / into the midst of your house / 12 2_ And it is to remain with you / until your brother claims / it / 21 3 and you shall return it \ to him // 10 1 3 and thus you shall do with his ass / 12 1_ And thus you shall do / with his garment / 12 2 and thus you shall do / 6 1 with any lost thing of your brother’s / 11 1 That is lost by him / and you find it // 16 2 _2 10 ס // you are not allowed / to hide yourself

Assisting Your Neighbor with Fallen Pack Animals [3:4]

4 If you see your brother’s ass / or his ox / 19 2 fallen on the road // 8 1 You shall not withhold your help / from them // 9 2 _2 11 ס // you shall help him / lift them up

Not Wearing Clothing of the Opposite Sex [4:3]

5 Things pertaining to a man shall not be worn / by a woman / 13 2 and a man shall not wear / a woman’s garment // 12 2 For it is an abomination / to YHWH your God / 15 2 _1 8 פ // anyone doing these things

Notes

or“ ,או את כל בהמתו a. The accent here is read as the conj. mahpāk. SP adds.1 any of his animals.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. .from your people.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,מעמך a. SP adds.2

2.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. 3.a. The waw-conj. is omitted in a few Heb. MSS, SP, Syr., and Vg.

. את a. Three Heb. MSS, SP, and Tg.MS add.4

Form/Structure/Setting The humanitarian concern introduced by the previous law on the treatment of the corpse of an executed criminal is here extended to living human beings and their lost property or fallen pack animals. The five laws in 22:1–8 may be outlined in a five-part concentric structure: A Returning your brother’s lost property 22:1–3 B Assisting fallen animals 22:4 X Not wearing clothing of the opposite sex 22:5 B′ Not capturing a mother bird with her young 22:6–7 A′ Building a parapet around the roof of one’s house 22:8 The outer frame in this structure moves from a law on returning a neighbor’s lost property (vv 1–3), to a law regarding one’s own property to protect the welfare of a neighbor by building a protective wall around the edge of the roof of one’s house (v 8). The inner frame here moves from a law expressing concern for the welfare of domestic animals, by assisting a fallen ass or ox (v 4), to a parallel law expressing concern for the welfare of a mother bird in the wild (vv 6–7). In the center we find, once again, an enigmatic law on not wearing the clothing of the opposite sex, which law poses a riddle of sorts (v 5). The topic of adultery, on which the larger literary unit of 21:10–23:1 is based, is extended to include illicit mixtures in general in a series of four laws, the first of which (22:5) applies to human beings and the other three (22:9–11) to seeds, plow animals, and textiles. Like the law of the insubordinate son (21:18–21), all four of these laws have produced much comment, reflection, and modification in subsequent Jewish tradition. The boundaries of the three laws on returning lost animals and other items (22:1–3), assisting fallen pack animals (22:4), and not wearing clothing of the opposite sex (22:5) are marked with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after 21:23 and 22:3 and 4 and the pĕtûḥāʾ layout marker after 22:5. On the basis of content, 22:1–4 may be outlined as follows: A If your brother’s ox or sheep goes astray, lend him your help 22:1 B If the owner is not known, take care of it as your own 22:2abc X When your brother claims it, give it back to him 22:2d B′ Do the same for his ass, garment, or any lost thing 22:3 A′ If your brother’s ass or ox falls in the way, help him 22:4 The outer frame presents two parallel situations of need: an ox or sheep of one’s neighbor that has strayed (v 1), and an ass or an ox that has fallen under its load (v 4). In both instances the person is commanded to come to his neighbor’s aid. The inner frame extends the situation into more complex situations: where the owner is not known, the person is to take care of the animal until it is claimed (v 2); and the principle extends to other animals, even clothing, or anything that is lost (v 3). When such lost items are claimed by the rightful owner, they are to be returned (v 2d). In BHS and BHK the boundary separating the brief law on assisting a brother with fallen pack animals (v 4) from the law forbidding the wearing of clothing of the opposite sex (v 5) is a bit misleading. L has a major indentation at the beginning of v 4, much the same as for 21:22; 22:1, 9, 11, and 12; but there is no major break at the end of the verse. Here the situation is similar to that of 22:8, 10, and 13, with a break in the middle of the line. There is a difference, however, in that the upper tail of the lamed in the next line fills up most of the blank space such that at first glance there appears to be no major break indicated at all. According to Tigay, SP indicates a significant break between vv 5 and 6, but not between vv 4 and 5 ([1996] 383 n. 1). The manner in which the text is laid out in L suggests that vv 4 and 5 are to be connected as a literary unit in two parts. Such a reading lends support to the suggestion by Carmichael (LNB, 160–64), who interprets both laws within the context of the wars in Transjordan in which the tribes of Reuben and Gad received their tribal allotment in is a “type of deliberate כלי־גבר the days of Moses. He suggests that the Hebrew phrase confusion in the context of war.” For him, “a transvestite ruse constitutes an example of secret sinning in this context of avoiding military service and would, in the words of the law, be properly described as ‘an abomination to Yahweh’ ” (LNB, 162). Moses is thus warning the Reubenites and Gadites that they should not seek to avoid their obligation by the men disguising themselves in women’s clothing, so as to remain behind, nor should the women choose to accompany their husbands by taking up the military paraphernalia of men. The laws of returning lost animals and assisting fallen ones (Deut 22:1–4) have their narrative analogue in the cattle of the Reubenites and the Gadites in Carmichael’s reading (LNB, 155–59). As Carmichael put it, the tradition in Num 32 brings out “the need for brother to help one another out, to reciprocate so that a brother’s inheritance is made secure. The Reubenites and Gadites did go to help out their fellow Israelites, and hence it was reasonable to imagine how Moses could have raised the question as to when a reciprocal service might be rendered to them in the future. In that they possessed many animals their brothers could help in protecting them” (LNB, 158). Labuschagne’s study of the use of the divine-name numbers in 22:1–5 lends support to the two-part structure that emerged in the prosodic analysis: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

22:1–3 33 + 18 = 51 (= 3 × 17) 22:4–5 22 + 10 = 32

The divine-name number 17 is intensified in the first subsection, with its total word count of 51 (= 3 × 17). The 32 words in the second subsection signify the “glory” of ”.glory“ ,כבוד YHWH, since this is the numerical value of the word

Comment 1 The reference to “your brother,” which appears five times in vv 1–4, emphasizes kinship with the person in need in the broadest sense of being a fellow Israelite. In the parallel passage of Exod 23:4–5, one must help even one’s enemy in such (והתעלמת מהם) ”circumstances. The command not to “hide yourself from them refers to open and active help in circumstances of a neighbor in need. Quiescence is as “take no notice,” arguing התעלם expressly forbidden. Craigie translated the verb that it demonstrates “the spirit of the Hebrew law. Unlike Babylonian law, it is not concerned primarily with a criminal act … rather it deals with shouldering responsibility as a member of the covenant community” ([1976] 287). 2–3 Even if the owner is unknown—“you do not know him”—the responsibility stands. The finder is to bring the animal to his own home and keep it there, provide for it as if it were his own, “until your brother claims it.” The list of what is included in this law is inclusive: livestock (ox and sheep), major beast of burden (ass), clothing, and “any (other) lost thing of your brother’s.” On the statement “you are not allowed to hide yourself,” see the discussion in v 1. To fulfill the demands of the law here “requires an inner attitude which makes such activity cheerfully possible” (G. E. Wright, IB2:464). were common beasts of burden, which on (שׁור) ”and the “ox (חמור) ”The “ass 4 occasion collapsed under their load and lay there “fallen in the road” (cf. Exod 23:5). 5 The law on transvestism (22:5) is brief and enigmatic. Some scholars have noted things pertaining to a man,” could just as well be“ ,כלי־גבר that here the term translated as the “gear of a warrior.” As K.-M. Beyse has noted (TDOT 7:173), the in reference to clothing occurs only in legal texts, but the sole text he cites כלי term without qualification to demonstrate its use in this manner is Deut 22:5, and then only on the basis of the fact that the verse includes a parallel line that forbids men to wear כלי The use of the word in 1:41 in the phrase .(שׂמלת אשׁה) female clothing always “contains the גבר his weapons of war,” is illustrative, for the word“ ,מלהמתו element of strength, especially in a general sense” (H. Kosmala, TDOT 2:377). The use of the term in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:30), where the RSV reads, “a maiden [womb] represents the coarse language of soldiers according ”,[גבר] or two for every man to HAL. Though such actions are described as “an abomination to YHWH,” it is not clear what the reasons for this law were. Römer has collected interesting examples of transvestism and related matters from Mesopotamian sources (FS M. A. Beek, 217–22). For references to transvestism in the Greco-Roman period, see Driver ([1895] 250). Craigie presents an interesting quotation that merits repetition: “Again, in some religions, it has been the custom for priests to assume a quasi-female or even completely female garb, and … this usually occurred when the deity was a goddess rather than a god” (Craigie [1976] 288 n. 5, citing C. Allen, A Textbook of Psychosexual Disorders [London: Oxford UP, 1962] 243).

Explanation Though the original meaning of the term “brother” in the law of returning lost animals (22:1–3) and assisting fallen ones (22:4) referred to fellow Israelites, it applies to any human being in need, as Jesus demonstrated in his definition of the term “neighbor” in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37). The law here is essentially that of the Golden Rule to do to others what we would have them do to us. Moreover, we ought not to let trouble and expense prevent us from doing a kind action to a neighbor in need; nor are we permitted to retain lost property we have found when there is a possibility of finding the rightful owner. If a merciful person is to assist another’s lost or fallen beast of burden, how much more should we hasten to the relief of a neighbor who has fallen into distress or poverty? The dangerous days in which we live have caused some to ignore the needs of those we meet. Stories of those who have been victimized by stopping to help others enable us to rationalize why it is wiser not to get involved, and so we pass on by—as did the priest and the Levite in Jesus’ story of the good Samaritan. We do well to remember that our neighbor is anyone in true need, whether friend or foe. The law in 22:5 has been the source of considerable debate and difference of opinion in both Jewish and Christian circles. At first glance it appears to forbid the practice of transvestism, a form of sexual behavior characterized by wearing clothing appropriate to the opposite sex. The law is without parallel in the Torah, and the do not refer (כלי גבר) ”Hebrew words translated “things pertaining to a man specifically to male clothing, but to ornaments, weapons, and other items as well. Craigie has called attention to two possibilities, either of which might help to explain the remark that the behavior in question is an abomination to YHWH. “First, transvestism tends to be associated with certain forms of homosexuality; second, in the ancient world, it is probable that transvestite practices were associated with the cults of certain deities” ([1976] 288). In either case transvestism would be “an abomination to YHWH your God” (cf.Lev 18:22; 20:13 and Deut 7:25; 18:12). But we have no certainty as to what lay behind this particular law. The folly in taking a hard stand on a surface reading of the text is well illustrated in older commentaries, such as that of Thomas Scott: “Let stage-players and others of similar occupations well consider, (among many other and great evils connected with their line of life,) how they will answer to God, for their continual violation of this express commandment.… and let young people remember that this change of apparel is not to be considered as a frolic, but as an act of rebellion against God” (Holy Bible [1823] 1:540). In this regard, the portrayal of Mrs. Doubtfire by Robin Williams in the movie of that name or Tootsie by Dustin Hoffman would be considered a glaring abomination to YHWH. However one chooses to interpret the specific meaning of this prohibition against wearing clothing of the opposite sex, it is difficult to make a case against transvestism in matters of detail on the basis of this one isolated text, the purpose of which within the culture of ancient Israel remains enigmatic. 3. Not Capturing a Mother Bird along with Her Young (22:6–7) Bibliography

Carmichael, C. M. “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT 32 (1982) 395–415. ———. The Laws of Deuteronomy. 1974. 151–56. Daube, D. “Direct and Indirect Causation in Biblical Law.” VT 11 (1961) 251. 283–94, esp. 286. Haran, M. “Biblical Studies: The Kid in Its Mother’s Milk and the Kid Who Sucks Its Mother’s Milk.” Tarbiz52 (1982/83) 371–92 (Heb.). Henry, M.-L. Das Tier im religiösen Bewusstsein des alttestamentlichen Menschen. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte 220/221. Tübingen: Mohr, 1958. Johnston, R. M. “The Least of the Commandments: :6–7 in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity.” AUSS 20 (1982) 205–15. Keel, O. Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs. OBO 33. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1980. Nielsen, E. “ ‘You Shall Not Muzzle an Ox While It Is Treading out the Corn,’ Dt. 25, 4.” In Law, History and Tradition. 1983. 94–105. Peacock, H. F. “Deut 22, 7.” BT 27 (1976) 246– .EM 7:634–36 ”. שׁלוח הקן“ .Toeg, A .47

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Not Capturing a Mother Bird along with Her Young [(6:4):(4:6)]

6 When you chance upon a bird’s nest / before you / 17 2 in the way / in any tree / 7 2 or on the ground / with fledglings \ or eggs / 19 2_ And the mother is sitting / on the fledglings / 17 2 or / on the eggs // 8 2_ You shall not take away the mother / with the young ones // 14 2 7 you shall surely release / the mother / 12 2 And the young ones / you may take for yourself // 11 2 that / it may go well with you / 8 2 _2 9 ס // and you may prolong / your days

Notes

6.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

Form/Structure/Setting As noted above in the discussion of 21:22–22:4, the laws on not capturing a mother bird with her young (22:6–7) and building a parapet around the roof of one’s house (22:8) are part of a series of six laws that are placed under the general topic of what I have called “true religion.” They stand at the structural center of the larger literary unit of 21:10–23:1. The law on sparing a mother bird extends the principle of humanitarian concern beyond that of domestic animals that are the property of human beings to animal life in general. God’s people are commanded to carry the principle of protecting and providing for the poor and vulnerable in need even to insignificant animals that are part of the normal food supply. In the law of the parapet (22:8) the focus returns to the human sphere, where the concern is to prevent a person from having a fatal accident. The law of the mother bird (22:6–7) is often compared to the laws of Lev 22:27–28, “When a bull or sheep or goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother.… And whether the mother is a cow or a ewe, you shall not kill both her and her young in one day.” It is argued that the reverence for the parent-child relationship is extended to animals. The same motive is often used to explain the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (14:21). It should be noted, however, that the law of the mother bird is in the center of a concentric structure and that the rule of the “riddle at the middle” applies to its interpretation. The boundaries of the law of the mother bird (22:6–7) are marked with the sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the beginning and the end. At the same time, it should be noted that L appears to make a structural connection between vv 7 and 8. Though the prosodic analysis presented above scans vv 6–7 as a 6:4:4:6 prosodic unit, in terms of syntactic accentual stress units, it is also possible to read vv 6–8 as a 7:6:6:7 rhythmic unit in which the zāqēp̱ qātôn, which was read as a conjunctive accent in v 6, is read as disjunctive. Moreover, such a reading corresponds exactly with the versification in BHS:

6 When you chance upon a bird’s nest / before you / in the way / 20 3 in any tree / or on the ground / with fledglings / 17 3 or eggs / 6 1_ And the mother is sitting / on the fledglings / or / the eggs // 25 4 you shall not take the mother / with the young ones // 14 2_ 7 You shall surely release / the mother / 12 2 and the young ones \ you may take for yourself // 11 1 that / it may go well with you / and you may live long // 18 3_ 8 When you build / a new house / 10 2 you shall make a parapet / for your roof // 13 2 that you do not bring bloodguilt / on your house / 16 2 if anyone should fall from it // 14 1_

This particular prosodic analysis suggests that the two very different laws in vv 6– 7 and 8 belong together to form a single literary unit, at least in one particular reading. At the same time, it should be noted that v 8 is also closely tied to v 9 and the following section on illicit mixtures. In other words, v 8forms a rhythmic bridge connecting vv 6– 7 with 9–12. The relationship of vv 6–7 to v 8 may be outlined within a concentric structure that extends from v 5 through v 11: A Illicit mixtures: transvestism 22:5 B If you find a bird’s nest, release the mother and keep the young 22:6–7a X That it may go well with you and you may prolong your life 22:7b B′ When you build a new house, make a parapet for the roof 22:8 A′ Three laws on illicit mixtures: seed, plow animals, and textiles 22:9–11 A brief quotation taken from the fifth commandment to honor one’s parents (5:16) stands at the center of this structure. The inner frame presents two parallel actions that will serve to achieve the blessing in the center. On the one hand, we find the release of the mother bird (vv 6–7); and on the other we find the building of the parapet around the edge of the roof of one’s house (v 8). Both acts are humanitarian in nature: one toward the animal world, and the other toward human beings. The outer frame moves from the first law of illicit mixtures, which pertains to human beings (v 5), to a set of three laws on illicit mixtures, which concern the nonhuman world (vv 9–11). Carmichael argues that the conventional interpretations of the law on sparing the mother bird leave many questions unanswered. “The law is manifestly interested in the question of what to kill and what not to kill; in particular, the view is that killing in a selective way means that an important life is preserved” (LNB, 166). A close reading of the language of the law itself has led Carmichael to an interesting at the קרא series of texts to explain the meaning of this law. The niphal use of the verb outset appears elsewhere of hostile encounters, as D. Daube has shown (Suddenness and Awe in Scripture [London: Robert Waley Cohen Memorial Lecture, Council of the ( ַ ו ִ יּ קָּ רֵ א) ”Christians and Jews, 1963] 6–10). For instance, when Absalom “met servants of David (2 Sam 18:9), violence was anticipated. The mention of “the mother with the children” has parallels in two other contexts that involve violent confrontation. In the story of Jacob’s return to the land of Canaan, just before his encounter with Esau and his four hundred men, Jacob’s prayer for deliverance includes these words in Gen 32:12(Eng. 32:11): “for I am afraid of him; he NRSV). See) ”[ אם על־הבנים] may come and kill us all, the mothers with the children also Hos 10:14. The same image appears in Greek literature, as Carmichael has observed (LNB, 167 n. 6; Apollodorus, Epitome 3.15; Homer, Iliad 2.299–330). The most instructive parallel discussed by Carmichael is found in two stories of David in which cities are compared to a mother, and its inhabitants to her children, where the central issue is the question of whom to kill and whom not to kill (see also D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David, JSOTSup 6 [Sheffield: Sheffield UP, 1978] 39–40). In the story of Sheba’s rebellion (2 Sam 20:1–22), the wise woman of Abel of Beth- maacah makes a curious reference to “a city that is a mother in Israel” (v 19 NRSV). Sheba had taken refuge within that city and Joab had come to get him. The woman’s response to Joab’s request that Sheba alone be given over to him was forthright: “His head shall be thrown over the wall to you” (v 21 NRSV). The second incident involves another wise woman, Abigail, the wife of Nabal (1 Sam 25). David’s intended attack on Nabal’s household was primarily to obtain food, which Abigail supplied to forestall bloodshed. For Carmichael, “Such a desirable consequence is the aim of the law on the bird’s nest, just as it is for the following law about blood on a new house” (LNB, 173). It would appear that those who composed the stories of David made use of the law of the sparing of the mother bird as a structuring motif. The law on the treatment of the body of an executed criminal (Deut 21:22–23) was used to structure the movement of the narrative from the conquest of Ai to the renewal of the covenant at Shechem. But when David gave up the seven sons of Saul to the Gibeonites, the law was violated and consequently the land was defiled. In short, the law on not capturing a mother bird with her young was used to structure the account of David’s military activity. According to Carmichael (LNB, 176–80), the law of the parapet is connected with the narrative of the transition from the kingdom of David to that of his son Solomon. When David was on his deathbed, he ordered his son Solomon to execute Joab for the murder of Amasa (1 Kgs 2:5–6) and of Shimei for cursing David at the time of Abasalom’s rebellion (1 Kigs 2:8–9). The death of Joab was justified on the grounds that he had murdered Abner and Amasa, “retaliating in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist, and on the sandals on his feet” (1 Kgs 2:5 NRSV). The law requiring an Israelite to build a parapet on the roof of his new house in the new land was used to shape the story of David and Solomon. The blood shed by Joab “remained a problem for David’s house (in a symbolic sense), and [its] removal was vital for the establishment of Solomon’s house (both symbolic and actual)” (LNB, 180). The law of the bird’s nest with its interest in “mother with children” was used to shape the traditions relating to David and the establishment of his dynasty; whereas the law on the new house was used to shape the tradition about the succession of Solomon and the building of his new house. The purpose of the parapet was “that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house” (Deut 22:8). Solomon justified the execution of Joab with these words: “and thus take away from me and from my father’s house the guilt for the blood which Joab shed without cause” (1 Kgs 2:31). The evidence from Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” for 22:6–7 is as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

22:6 21 + 5 = 26 22:6–7 29 + 10 = 39

There are 26 words in v 6. Moreover, the total of 39 words in vv 6–7 is divided into 26 words in main clauses and 13 words in subordinate clauses. Once again, the divine- name number 26 is carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text.

Comment

appears also in Job 39:30 (of fledgling birds (אפרחים) ”The term “fledglings 7–6 of prey) and Ps 84:4 (Eng. 3) (of the young of a sparrow and a swallow). The phrase is also used in contexts of war (Hos (האם על־בנים) ”the mother with the young ones“ 10:14) and of Jacob’s fear of what Esau might do to his family on his return to the land of Canaan (Gen 32:12 [11]). It appears to have been a common expression for wanton the mother” has been [שׁלח תשׁלח] killing. The expression “you shall surely release interpreted as meaning either “release” or “chase away,” so that the mother would not see her young taken away (Maimonides, Guide 3.48; citation from Tigay [1996] 383 n. 17). The clause “that it may go well with you and you may prolong your life” appears earlier in the conclusion of the fifth commandment to honor one’s parents (Deut 5:16), but in reverse order. “Inversion of clauses often indicates an intentional allusion to earlier passages in biblical literature. This allusion calls attention to the fact that the present command is likewise an aspect of respecting a parent” (Tigay [1996] 201). In his expression, “exchanging a long-term profit for an immediate gain,” Craigie ([1976]289) used language from the commercial world to say what some of the Jewish sages noted in times past. To kill the mother removes a capital asset, a future means of supplying more food.

Explanation The law fosters reverence for the parent-child relationship even among the animals. As Matthew Henry put it, “The remembrance of this may, perhaps, some time or other, keep us from doing a hard or unkind thing to those whom we have at our mercy” (An Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 661). An entirely different kind of meaning is found in this law when interpreted along the lines that Carmichael has proposed: killing in a selective way means that an important life is preserved. When the high priest Caiaphas said “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50 NRSV), he spoke to the same issue. According to the Gospel account, Jesus died that we might live.

4. Five Laws on “True Religion” and Illicit Mixtures (22:8–12) Bibliography

Ahituv, S. “sha˓atnez.” EM. 8:228–29. Boecker, H. J. “ ‘Du sollst dem Ochsen, der da drischt, das Maul nicht verbinden’: Überlegungen zur Wertung der Natur im Alten Testament.” In FS F. Lang. 1978. 72–89. Braulik, G. “Die dekalogische Redaktion der deuteronomischen Gesetze: Ihre Abhängigkeit von Levitikus 19 am Beispiel von Deuteronomium 22, 1–12; 24, 10–22; 25, 13–16.” In Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. Ed. G. Braulik. 1997. 147–82, esp. 153– 60. Dommen, A. J.Innovation in African Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1988 (see “intercropping” in index). Douglas, M. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980 Fensham, F. C. “Liability in Case of Negligence in the Old Testament Covenant Code and Ancient Legal Traditions.” In Acta Juridica 1976: FS B. Beinart. Cape Town: Juta, 1978. 283–94. Goldziher, I. “Zu SÅaat\nêz.” ZAW 20 (1900) 36–37. Görg, M. “Eine rätselhafte Textilbezeichnung im Alten Testament.”BN 12 (1980) 13–17. Greenstein, E. L. “Biblical Law.” In Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts. Ed. B. W. Holtz. New York: Summit, 1984. 83–103. Haran, M. Temples and Temple Service. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. 160–62, 212. Hopkins, D. C. Highlands of Canaan. SWBA 3. Sheffield: Almond, 1985. 284–85. Houtman, C. “Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures.” VT 34 (1984) 226–28. Lambdin, T. O. “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament.” JAOS 73 (1953) 145– 55. Loss, N. M. “A Proposito di Lev 19, 19b e di Deut 22, 10.” RBibIt 6 (1959) 361– 64. Milgrom, J. “Excursus 38: The Tassels ‘Tsitsit’.” In Numbers. 1990. 410–14. Noonan, J. T. “The Muzzled Ox.” JQR 70 (1979) 172–75. Paschen, W. Rein und Unrein. Munich: Kosel, ”.TWAT6:1072–75. Sheffer, A. “The Textiles ”. צמר“ .Rüterswörden, U .55 .1970 In Kuntillet Ajrud. Ed. Z. Meshel. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1978. Translation and Prosodic Analysis Building a Parapet on the Roof of One’s House [5]

8 When you build \ a new house / 10 1 you shall make a parapet \ for your roof // 13 1 that you do not bring bloodguilt / on your house / 16 2 _1 14 ס // if anyone should fall from it

Not Sowing Mixed Seed in Your Vineyard [6]

9 You shall not sow your vineyard / with a second kind of seed // 12 2 lest you forfeit as holy/ 3 1 the crop from the seed \ you have sown / 14 1 _2 10 ס // and the produce / of the vineyard

Not Mixing the Ox and the Ass as Plow Animals [2]

2 18 ס // You shall not plow with an ox and an ass / together 10

Not Mixing Wool and Linen in Clothing [4]

11 You shall not put on / the finery of a prostitute / 8 2 _2 10 ס // wool and linen / woven together

True Religion: Wearing Tassels on Garments [5]

12 Tassels / you shall make for yourselves // 10 2 at the four / corners of your cloak / 10 2 _1 7 ס // with which you cover yourself

Notes

8.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 8.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. you shall forfeit as holy,” with no change“ ,תקדשׁ for MT תקדישׁ a-a. SP reads.9 in meaning.

9.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. you shall plow,” with no change in“ ,תחרשׁ for MT תחרישׁ a. SP reads.10 meaning. you shall cover yourself,” for“ , תִּ תְ כַּ סֶּ ה a. Syr. appears to be reading.12 ”.you shall cover“ ,תכסה MT

Form/Structure/Setting The five laws in this section include three on forbidden combinations of seed, plow animals, and the mixing of wool and linen in woven textiles (the finery of a prostitute), which, together with the law on transvestism (22:5), complete the list of four laws on illicit mixtures. The three laws here are framed by two transitional ones, from a literary point of view, which fall under the general category of what I have called “true religion” (on humanitarian issues): the law on building a parapet around the roof of one’s house (22:8) and the law requiring tassels on garments (22:12). The first two laws are tied together in a balanced rhythmic structure, as are the last three. Moreover, the last two are also connected in terms of content, moving from the prohibition of combining wool and linen in the same woven fabric (v 11) to the law requiring tassels, which are made by combining these very materials (v 12). The laws in 22:8–12 are divided into five parts with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after each verse. On the basis of prosodic analysis it becomes clear that the five laws are in a single prosodic structure that scans 5:6:6:5 in terms of syntactic accentual stress units. From a prosodic point of view, the law on building a parapet on the roof of one’s house (22:8) appears to function as a rhythmic bridge connected with both vv 6–7 on the release of the mother bird, and with v 9 on sowing two kinds of seed in one’s vineyard. The structural tie between v 8 and vv 9–12 may be shown in the following outline, which should be compared with the one in the previous section of this commentary for vv 5–11: A Build a parapet on the roof of your house 22:8 B Do not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seeds 22:9 X Do not plow with an ox and an ass together 22:10 B′ Do not wear cloth of wool and linen woven together 22:11 A′ Make tassels at the four corners of your cloak 22:12 The focus of attention in this reading is on the law that forbids plowing with the ox and the ass together (v 10), which is also the shortest of the five laws. That this verse does not have an ʾatnāḥ to divide it in two parts suggests that vv 10 and 11 constitute a single verset in terms of the rhythmic structure of22:8–12 as a whole. The inner frame moves from the law forbidding the sowing of two kinds of seed in one’s vineyard (v 9) to the law on not mixing wool and linen in clothing (v 11). The outer frame moves from the injunction to build a parapet on the roof of one’s house (v 8) to that of wearing tassels on garments (v 12). The outer frame is expressed in positive terms, stating what a person is to do; whereas the three laws inside this frame are expressed negatively, stating what is forbidden so far as “mixtures” are concerned. The whole of this literary unit is permeated with enigma so far as actual meaning is concerned. The placing of the law against plowing with the ox and the ass together in the center of this structure serves to tie the entire structural unit of vv 9–12to the law about returning lost animals (vv 1–4), which also mentions the ox and the ass. The structure of the whole section of nine domestic laws in22:1–12 may be outlined in concentric fashion: A Returning lost animals and raising fallen ones (ox and ass) 22:1–4 B Illicit mixtures: wearing clothing of the opposite sex 22:5 X Humanitarian concern: mother bird with her young and parapet 22:6–8 B′ Illicit mixtures: seeds, plowing with ox and ass, textiles 22:9–11 A′ Put tassels on the corners of your cloak 22:12 The inner frame in this structure continues the focus on laws associated with the seventh commandment prohibiting adultery, in the law on transvestism (v 5), which is set over against three other laws on forbidden combinations: mixed seed (v 9), plowing with an ox and an ass together (v 10), and mixing wool and linen in the same woven fabric (v 11). The outer frame, with its focus on humanitarian concerns, moves from two laws on the treatment of lost and fallen animals (vv 1–4) to the curious law prescribing tassels on garments (v 12). in the law of the (האם על־הבנים) ”The phrase “the mother with her children bird’s nest (22:6–7) took Carmichael from the story of Jacob in Gen 32 to two stories of David (1 Sam 25 [Abigail] and 2 Sam 20 [the wise woman of Abel of Beth- maacah]; LNB, 165–76). The law of the parapet (22:8) carried the story to the execution of Joab in the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 2; LNB, 176–80). The law of the mixing of seed (22:9) takes him from Solomon back to the stories of Judah and his sons in Genesis (LNB, 185–93). Solomon belonged to the tribe of Judah, and his son Rehoboam was king of Judah, not of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). Thus the focus shifts back to Solomon’s ancestor Judah and a series of stories in Genesis. The mention of only one son of Solomon parallels the plight of Judah, after the death of Er and Onan, both of whom were slain by YHWH (Gen 38:7–10). As Carmichael has noted, both Solomon and Judah produced children of mixed seed (LNB, 182). It is interesting to note that Solomon and Judah are juxtaposed for genealogical purposes in 1 Chr 3:10– 4:1. The three laws that follow on sowing mixed seed in a vineyard (v 9), plowing with an ox and ass together (v 10), and mixing wool and linen in the same fabric are all in the form of proverbs, expanded in story form in the narrative literature of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Carmichael,LNB, 185–97). “By way of illuminating events in the human world, proverbs often refer to activity in the plant and animal one” (LNB, 183–84), as is the case here in the laws of illicit mixtures. in a vineyard ( כִּ לְ אָ ִ י ם) ”If the law prohibiting the sowing of “a second kind of seed is taken literally, it raises puzzling questions. Indeed, as Carmichael has noted, there is evidence “that it might have been the normal, and one might add the sensible, thing to rather than the plural, raises , כִּ לְ אָ ִ י ם ,do” (LNB, 187). The use of the dual form questions, as does the simple fact that a vineyard presupposes grapevines. If the vineyard is not a new one, then it might be possible to interpret the text as referring to two other kinds of seed; but the second half of the verse makes specific reference to “the crop from the seed you have sown and the produce of the vineyard.” Israel, which is Jacob’s family in the widest sense, is God’s vineyard (see Ps 80:9,15 [Eng. 8, 14]; Isa 5:2; Jer 2:21, 6:9; Hos 10:1; and elsewhere). The story of Judah having sons through his daughter-in-law Tamar in Gen 38 is structured in terms of the law on sowing mixed seed. The vine here is interpreted as Jacob/Israel, who indeed was a fruitful vine with twelve sons. The situation with his son Judah, however, was not the same. The two elder of Judah’s three sons, Er and Onan, died in their attempt to continue the family line through Tamar. When Jacob, on his deathbed, referred to Judah’s binding first one and then another ass to the vine (Gen 49:11), he was alluding to the story of Er and Onan. Jacob continued: “he washes his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes.” This is a symbolic act, as Carmichael has shown: “The reference to Judah’s washing it [the man’s garment—i.e., his wife] by treading upon it in the juice of the grapes alludes not just to the deaths of Er and Onan in association with the Israelite vine, but to their origin from Judah’s union with the daughter of Shuah. They constituted a branch of his father’s vine. To wash one’s garment in the juice of grapes is to acknowledge that the ‘grapes’ produced by one’s wife have perished” (LNB, 189). When Judah would not give Shelah to Tamar, so as to perform the levirate duty, she took matters into her own hand and seduced Judah, her father-in-law, by whom she bore thus the dual ,(כלאים) ”twins: Perez and Zerah. These two constitute the “mixed seed form—in reference to Er and Onan, on the one hand, and to Perez and Zerah, on the other. The ambiguity about the relationship between the double seed and the vine is clarified by the story. Er and Onan constituted the half-Israelite vine. When Judah had them give of their seed to the Israelite vineyard (the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah) through union with Tamar, neither the seed that was sown nor the existing vine produced anything. The vineyard itself, however, continued to exist because Judah in (כלאים) ”himself sowed the seed in Tamar that produced the surviving “mixed seed the twins that were born of that union. “It is just possible that the breach birth that Tamar eventually experienced, and that was intended to be remembered in the name Perez, signified either to the narrator of the story, or to later thinkers, the precarious nature of the union between Judah, who would be regarded as pure vine, and Tamar, the palm tree” (Carmichael, LNB, 192). The law on plowing with an ox and an ass (v 10) carries the proverbial motif further. “The plowing and cultivation of a field is a natural figure for sexual intercourse” (M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977] 323). The ass refers to the Canaanite aspect, and the ox to the Israelite. In the story of the action taken by Simeon and Levi to the so-called rape of Dinah on the part of Shechem, the imagery of the ox and the ass becomes explicit: Jacob complains that “in their anger they slay men, and in their wantonness they hamstring oxen” (Gen 49:6). The man killed is Hamor (“ass”), and the parallel reference to the ox that still lives but is hamstrung is Jacob’s family, as presented in the story of Gen 34. On the imagery of the ox in relation to Israel see Deut 33:17; Num 22:4; 1 Kgs 22:11; Amos 6:12–13. From a prosodic point of view, v 12 belongs with vv 8–11 as the final part of a rhythmic unit that is scanned 5:6:6:5 in terms of syntactic accentual stress units. It should be noted that vv 10–12 are symmetrically balanced in terms of mora count: 26 + 10 + 27; and that the clause in the center of this structure, “wool and linen woven together,” functions as a rhythmic bridge connecting the two versets. It is the key to interpreting the meaning as well. The requirement of tassels on garments is discussed in Num 15:37–41, where they In traditional Jewish interpretation, they are understood to .(ציצית) ”are called “fringes be reminders to keep all of God’s commandments so as to be a holy people. According to Num 15:38, a blue cord is to be tied “on the fringe at each corner.” Tigay notes that “according to early rabbinic sources, the blue cord is made of wool while the other cords are linen. In other words, the tassels are made of sha˓atnez, the combination of fabrics forbidden in verse 11. This interpretation most likely stems from biblical times, since it is highly unlikely that the rabbis would have initiated a practice contradicting a biblical prohibition” (Tigay [1996] 203). Once again, a look beneath the surface of the text to its symbolic meaning within the context of the stories in Genesis is instructive, as Carmichael has shown (LNB, 198– 205). The law is to be understood figuratively in relation to the story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38. Judah faced a major problem in perpetuating his line through his half- Israelite, half-Canaanite sons (the “mixed seed” of v 9); and his own marriage to a Canaanite woman is essentially the “plowing of an ox and an ass together,” which is an extension of the earlier problem of intermarriage between his father Jacob’s family and that of Hamor (the “ass”). The focus now shifts to Judah’s intercourse with his daughter-in-law Tamar, who was disguised as an attractively dressed prostitute at Enaim that Judah encountered on his way to a sheep-shearing festival. Numerous commentators have noted the problems in a literal interpretation of the law here. Priestly garments such as the girdle, robe, breastpiece, and all call for mixing wool and linen. Only the priestly turban, breeches, and coat were to be made of linen alone (L. Bellinger, “Cloth,” IDB1:654). Moreover, in its present context the law about tassels on garments follows laws concerning the sexual activity of Judah’s sons Simeon and Levi and Jacob’s daughter Dinah (vv 9–11) and is followed by a series of laws dealing with marital and sexual misconduct (vv 13–29) within a larger unit that is essentially a “commentary” on the seventh commandment prohibiting adultery (21:10– 23:1 [Eng. 22:30]). The law of tassels on garments in22:12 forms an inclusion with the law of levirate marriage in 25:5–10, which reflects the story of Tamar’s problem in Gen 38. The first thing to note in the story of Judah and Tamar is the emphasis on her and dressed herself as (בגדי אלמנותה) ”clothing. She put off her “widow’s garments a prostitute, presumably garments made of linen because of its luxurious quality. She used her clothing to conceal her identity and to attract Judah, who was on his way to gather his annual supply of wool. The sexual union was a violation of the law, an illicit mixture (Carmichael, LNB, 199). Clothes have symbolic meaning in the Bible. To spread a garment over a woman to cover her nakedness refers to sexual union and symbolizes spiritual union, as the prophet Ezekiel expressed vividly in describing the relationship between God and his faithless bride: “I spread the edge of my cloak over you, and covered your nakedness.… I clothed you with embroidered cloth and with sandals of fine leather; I bound you in fine linen and covered you with rich fabric.… You took some of your garments, and made for yourself colorful shrines, and on them played the whore” (Ezek 16:8– 16NRSV). In describing the marriage relationship, the man is portrayed as putting on the woman as his new garment in an action that will cover his own nakedness. See the words of Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 3:10. “She is suggesting that she will become his new garment, that is, his wife, just as her action of uncovering his feet and lying at them conveys the similar sexual suggestion of becoming his new ‘shoes’ to be put on his genital ‘feet’ ” (Carmichael,LNB, 198; see also idem, ZAW 92 [1980] 248–66). The interpretation of the three laws on illicit mixtures in vv 9–11 provides the occasion for a fresh look at the earlier fourth such law on not wearing clothing of the opposite sex (v 5). “The transvestite law prohibits a man’s disguising himself in a woman’s clothing.… Tamar’s disguise and Judah’s subsequent intercourse with her combine to suggest the notion of Judah’s covering himself with her ‘clothing.’ This idea is also suggested by the fact that Tamar would not have removed her clothes when giving herself to Judah. It is also interesting to observe that from Tamar’s side she required a male of Judah’s family to ‘spread his skirt’ over her because she had a legitimate claim to it” (Carmichael, LNB, 202). The law of v 5 has to do with the story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38, more even than it does to the shaping of the tradition about the tribes of Reuben and Gad as noted above in the discussion of 12:5. Carmichael notes that clothing continues to be a dominant motif as the reader moves on from the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38) to the story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen 39–50). Joseph’s special coat, a symbol of his father Jacob’s favoritism, was eventually stripped from him, dipped in blood, and used as evidence of his death. Joseph was not dead, however, and a garment again becomes a central motif in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Unlike his brother Judah, Joseph resisted sexual temptation; but his garment was used as evidence against him. Potiphar’s wife used that garment to send Joseph to prison for twelve years, in spite of his innocence. He was condemned because a woman possessed his garment. Carmichael has argued that “the tassels are to be put upon an Israelite’s garment precisely for this purpose, to remind him that like Joseph he should be virtuous in matters of sexual morality, that he ‘should not follow after his heart and eyes to commit fornication,’ as Judah did in possessing the ša˓aṭnēz Tamar” (LNB, 208). He also calls our attention to the interesting story in b. Men. 44a of the disciple who was about to have intercourse with a prostitute but was stopped by the tassels on his garment, which miraculously struck him in the face. The prostitute was so impressed she became a proselyte and married him (LNB, 208 n. 2). An interesting parallel expression that serves to connect the law on the tassels (22:12) and the contrasting stories of Judah and Joseph in matters of sexual desire was noted by Carmichael in the story of Abraham passing his wife off as his sister to , king of Gerar, in Gen 20. Though Abimelech rightly avowed his innocence of any sexual impropriety, he did pay Abraham a substantial amount of money as “a is the word used כסות in Gen 38:15. The term (כסות עינים) ”covering of the eyes is also the name of the town (עינים) ”here for “garment,” and the term for “eyes (Enaim) where Tamar seduced Judah (38:14). Further evidence that the language of Gen 38 was influenced by the law on tassels is that the expression “to cover oneself with” is found only in Gen 38:14 and Deut 22:12 (with the (ב .with the prep כסה the piel of) possible exception of Jonah 3:6). Labuschagne’s study of the use of the divine-name numbers in 22:8–12 and its immediate context may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

(= 2 × 22:8–12 54 + 34 = 88 17) 22:9–10 9 8 17 + = 22:9–11 15 8 23 + = 22:7–11 30 21 51 (= 3 × 17) + = 21:22– (= 5 × 130 75 205 22:12 26) + = (= 10 × 22:1–12 109 61 170 + = 17)

Labuschagne has also shown that the 170 (= 10 × 17) words in 22:1–12 are divided into 102 (= 6 × 17) words in main clauses and 68 (= 4 × 17) words in subordinate clauses. The numerical composition gives important insight into the literary structure, as perceived by the scribes (“counters”) in ancient Israel. The whole of 21:22–22:12 is a literary unit, as I have found on independent grounds through the prosodic analysis presented here. In the outline of Deuteronomy in the Introduction, I have called this unit “Ten Laws on ‘True Religion’ and Illicit Mixtures.” Within this structure, 22:1–12 is also a literary unit, as the chapter division in MT bears witness. Moreover, 22:8–12 is a distinct literary subunit, which I have also shown in the prosodic analysis presented here.

Comment

is a low wall built around the edge of the roof as a safety (מעקה) ”A “parapet 8 precaution. The reference to “bring bloodguilt on your house” suggests that failure to provide a parapet amounts to criminal negligence (on “bloodguilt” see also the Comment on 19:10). refers to “mixed (כלאים) ”Sowing a “vineyard with a second kind of seed 9 cropping” or “intercropping,” a common practice in subsistence farming on limited amounts of agricultural land. The space between the vines is used for other crops. Scholars have suggested various reasons for the prohibition of mixed cropping. The law may “have originated in a desire to avoid foreign practices which had some magical or cultic associations; it may have a utilitarian reason in the inappropriate and wasteful use of crops and land,” as Mayes ([1981] 307–8) and others have suggested. The rendering is an attempt to interpret a technical phrase: literally “lest (פן־תקדשׁ) ”lest you forfeit“ you make sacrosanct,” which implies that it would not be available for common use. could (המלאה הזרע) ”Taken literally, the terms rendered as “the crop from the seed be rendered “the fullness of the seed,” or the whole yield. 10 The command not “to plow with an ox and an ass together” may have been intended to protect animals of unequal strength. At the same time, however, it should be noted that on occasion an ass and an ox were yoked together in plowing, as Driver has shown ([1895] 253). Craigie ([1976] 290) has also called attention to the fact that the ox was “clean” and the ass “unclean” according to 14:1–8. wool and linen ,[שׁעטנז] The prohibition against wearing “mixed material 11 woven together,” does not forbid combining wool and linen as such, but only wearing a garment of cloth made from that combination. The rabbis in Jewish tradition could find no explanation for this prohibition (Tigay [1996] 203). Josephus suggested that the prohibition applies only to the laity, because officiating priests did wear garments made of such mixtures (Josephus Ant. 4.8.11 §208; see Tigay [1996] 384 n. 35). The appears to be Egyptian (Lambdin, JAOS 73 [1953] 145–55; see Craigie שׁעטנז term [1976] 290 n. 13). Craigie suggested the possibility that the reason for the prohibition comes from Egypt, which during the Eighteenth Dynasty imported various pattern weaves, perhaps from Syria ([1976] 290, citing J. R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of Egypt, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1971] 92). apparently refers not to mixed materials as שׁעטנז Here in v 11, however, Hebrew such but to a luxurious linen garment that a prostitute might wear (T. O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 [1953] 155). The interpretation “mixed stuff” in most translations comes from a surface reading of its use in a context of illicit mixtures. Carmichael’s translation is more apropros: “Thou [Judah/Israel] shalt not put on ša˓aṭnēz [a prostitute], wool [the Israelite] and linen [the prostitute] together” (LNB, 201). were twisted braids of thread that were attached “at the four (גדלים) ”Tassels“ 12 According to Tigay ([1996] 203), “The four .(כסות) ”of the “cloak (כנפות) ”corners corners (lit., ‘wings’ or ‘extremities’) were probably either the points on scalloped hems or the places at which vertical bands of embroidery met the hems. Both styles, sometimes with tassels attached, are visible in ancient Near Eastern murals.” The cloak served both as a coat for daytime use and as a blanket at night. Carmichael’s tassels,” merit comment“ ,גדלים suggestions in regard to the meaning of the term (LNB, 210 n. 4). The term has cognates in Aramaic and Arabic that denote plaited cords to become strong,” in“ ,גדל or hair. Nonetheless, he associates the term with the root in Gen 38:11, 14). See the גדל the sense of mature sexually (cf. use of the verb observations of G. R. Driver (“L’interprétation du text masorétique à la lumière de la lexiocographie hébraïque,” ETL 26 [1950] 343), who connects the meaning of “strong” and “twisting.” In traditional usage, the blue cord (which according to Num 15:38 must be attached to each tassel) was made of wool while the other cords were linen. According to Milgrom, the reason for this exception to the law of “mixed materials” characterized priestly garments; and thus wearing tassels reminds שׁעטנז was that the every Israelite to strive for holiness like the priests, to become a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6) (Milgrom, Numbers[1990] 410–14). In Jewish tradition the tassels were made of four white threads folded double (hence eight thread ends), tassels” in Num“) ציצית each with five double knots. The numerical value of the word = צ here in Deuteronomy) is 600 (= 90 + 10 + 90 + 10 + 400), since גדלים = 15:37 Adding these numbers (600 + 8 + 5) yields 613, the traditional .400 = ת and ,10 = י ,90 number of commandments in the Torah.

Explanation Houses in the ancient Near East had flat roofs that were used for various purposes. According to Tigay, in traditional Jewish interpretation, the law on building a parapet (22:8) is taken “as an example of an obligation to block or remove anything on one’s property that is capable of causing death, such as a pit, a faulty ladder, or a vicious dog; and to personally avoid potentially harmful food and drink.” The law has also been used in recent years “to support a ban on smoking” ([1996] 201). The law reminds us that each member of society is responsible for the safety of others. We are our brother’s keeper. The three laws on illicit mixtures in Deut 22:9–11 have their parallel in Lev 19:19 (NRSV): “You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” The reasons for these laws are not clear. In this regard, the comments of the medieval Jewish exegete Rashi are worthy of note; he argued that these laws belong among the sovereign decrees of God, for which no reason need be given (Rashi, at Lev 19:19; see Tigay [1996] 202 and 384 n. 25). In other words, we ought not to press the matter trying to find explanations for the law. The prohibition of mixing the ox and ass as plow animals (v 10) has been explained in various ways, usually as an attempt to protect draught animals. But once again, the reasoning of the exegetes from presumed parallels in the practice of ancient Roman agriculture are less than convincing. It seems more likely that a symbolic meaning is the primary reason for these laws, perhaps along the lines of what Carmichael has suggested in terms of relating the words of the law itself to the larger narrative tradition within the Torah and the Former Prophets—and to set the stage for the following law on wearing tassels on garments, which are expressly made of the forbidden mixture of textiles in 22:11. The ancient rabbis could find no explanation for the prohibition of mixing wool and linen in clothing (v 11), and like Rashi, considered the commandment to be one for which there is no apparent reason. Tigay refers to the observations made by Josephus (Ant. 4.8.11 §208): “the prohibition applies to the laity, because the priests, when they officiate, do wear garments made of such mixtures. The status of such garments is thus comparable to that of the sacred anointing oil and the incense that is used in the sanctuary and may not be made or used by laypersons, as stated in Exodus 30:22–37” ([1996] 203). The law on the tassels takes on the form of a riddle that, with proper instruction and guidance, invites the reader into the complex world of the commandments in the Torah in relation to the biblical narrative with its many layers of meanings. The primary meaning, however, is clear: we are reminded of the need to keep God’s commandments.

C. Seven Laws on Marriage and Sexual Misconduct (22:13–23:1 [Eng. 22:30])

1. Two Laws on Premarital Unchastity (22:13–21)

2. Two Laws on Adultery (22:22–24)

3. Two Laws on Rape (22:25–29) Bibliography for 22:13–29

Amran, D. W. The Jewish Law of Divorce according to Bible and . New York: Hermon Press, 1969. 1–31. Boschi, B. G. “Problemi della Famiglia nella Bibbia.” Sacra Doctrina 20 (1975) 395–417. Burrows, M. The Basis of Israelite Marriage. American Oriental Series 15. 1938. Repr. New York: Kraus, 1970.Eberharter, A. Das Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer mit Rücksicht auf die ethnologische Forschung. ATAbh 5.1–2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1914. Epstein, L. M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. HSS 12. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942. ———. Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: Ktav, 1967. 165, 206. Fensham, F. C. “Aspects of Family Law in the Covenant Code in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” DiIs 1. (1969) v–xix. Finkelstein, J. J. “The Laws of Ur- Nammu.” JCS 22 (1968–69) 73. ———. “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws.” JAOS 86 (1966) 355–72, esp. 368–69. Friedman, M. A. Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ., 1980. Granqvist, H. N. Marriage Conditions. 1931–35. 2:127–30. Greenberg, M. “More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law.” In Studies in Bible. Ed. S. Japhet. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. 1–4. ———. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” In SBTS 3:283–300, esp. 288–89. MacDonald, E. M. The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes of Law. University of Toronto Studies, Oriental Series 1. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1931. MacDonald, J. “The Status and Role of the NAʿAR in Israelite Society.” JNES 35 (1976) 147–70. Mace, D. R. Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study. London: Epworth, 1953. Malul, M. “SUSAPINNU: The Mesopotamian Paranymph and His Role.” JESHO 32 (1989) 264. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London: Longmans, Green, 1944. Otto, E. “Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law.” InTheory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Ed. B. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. 160–96, esp. 189–92. —— —. “Das Eherecht im Mittelassyrischen Kodex und im Deuteronomium: Tradition und Redaktion in den 12–16 der Tafel A des Mittelassyrischen Kodex und in Dtn 22, 22–29.” In Mesopotamica, Ugaritica, Biblica: FS K. Bergerhof. Ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 232. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993. 259–81. ———.Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des ‘Bundesbuches’ Ex XX 22- XXIII 13. StudBib 3. Leiden: Brill, 1988. 9–56. Praag, A. van. Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien. Allard Pierson Stichting Archaeologisch- Historische Bijdragen 12. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1945. Rauh, S. “Hebräisches Familienrecht in vorprophetischer Zeit.” Diss., Berlin, 1907. Reintjens, H. Die soziale Stellung der Frau bei den nordarabischen Beduinen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Ehe- und Familienverhältnisse. Bonner orientalistische Studien, n.s. 30. Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalisches Seminars der Universität Bonn, 1975. Roth, M. “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo- Assyrian Forms.” In Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987) 715– 47. Schereschewsky, B. “Child Marriage.” EncJud 5:423–26. Selms, A. van.Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature. POS 1. London: Luzac, 1954. Stuhlman, L. “Sex and Familial Crimes in the D Code: A Witness to Mores in Transition.” JSOT 53 (1992) 58– .JBL 81 (1962) 67–69. Wenham, G ”. אשר לא ארשה Weiss, D. H. “A Note on .60 J., and McConville, J. G. “Drafting Techniques in Some Deuteronomic Laws.” VT 30 (1980) 248–52. Westbrook, R. “Riddles in Deuteronomic Law.” In Bundesdokument und Gesetz. 1995. 159–74. Bibliography for 22:13–21 ,Diss., Boston Univ., 1976. Ann Arbor ”.שׂנא Branson, R. D. “A Study of the Hebrew Term MI: UMI Order No. 76–21272. Buchholz, J. Die Ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium. 1988. Burrows, M. “Levirate Marriage in Israel.” JBL 59 (1940) 23–33, esp. 29. Cassin, E. “Pouvoirs de la Femme et Structures Familiales.” RA63 (1969) 121– 48. Ceresko, A. R. “The Function of Antanaclasis (mṣ˒ ‘to find’ // mṣ ˒ ‘to reach, overtake, grasp’) in Hebrew Poetry, Especially in the Book of Qoheleth.” CBQ 44 (1982) 551– 69. Collins, O. E. “The Stem znh and Prostitution in the Hebrew Bible.” Diss., Brandeis Univ., 1977. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Order No. 77–13364. Cruveilhier, P. “Le droit de la femme dans la Genèse et dans le recueil de lois assyriennes.” RB 36 (1927) 350–76. Dempster, S. “The Deuteronomic Formula kî yimmāsē˒ in the Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: An Evaluation of David Daube’s Theory.” RB 91 (1984) 188–211.D’Ercole, G. “La Struttura Giuridica di Israele.” In Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 31 (1965) 246–304, esp. 250– 55. Derrett, J. D. M. “The Disposal of Virgins.” Man 9 (1974) 23–30. Gelb, I. J. “Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 10.–14.4.1978. Ed. E. Lipin ski. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5.6. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. 1– 97. Gerleman, G. “Die Nicht-Mensch: Erwägungen zur hebräischen Wurzel NBL.” VT 24 (1974) 147–58. Hallo, W. W. “The Slandered Bride.” InStudies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim. Ed. R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964. 95– 105. Hirzel, R. “Die Strafe der Steinigung.” Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909) 223–66, esp. 245. Jakobson, V. A. “Studies in Neo-Assyrian Law: 1. Matrimonial Law.” Altorientalische Forschungen 1 (1974) 115–21. Lipinåski, E. “The Wife’s Right to Divorce in the Light of an Ancient Near Eastern Tradition.” JLA 4 (1981) 9–27. Locher, C. “Deuteronomium 22, 13–21: Vom Prozeßprotokoll zum kasuistischen Gesetz.” In Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1985. 298–303. ———. Die Ehre einer Frau in Israel: Exegetische und rechtsvergleichende Studien zu Deuteronomium 22, 13–21. Ed. O. Keel. OBO 70. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1986. Lohfink, N. “Die Ältesten Israels und der Bund: Zum Zusammenhang von Dtn 5, 23; 26, 17–19; 27, 1.9f und 31, 9.” BN 37 (1993) 26–42. Marx, V. “Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonien gemäss den kontrakten aus der Zeit von Nebukadnezar bis Darius (604– 485).” Beiträge zur Assyriologie 4 (1902) 1–77. Miller, C. M. “Maidenhood and Virginity in Ancient Israel.” ResQ 22 (1979) 242–46. Neubauer, J. Beiträge zur Geschichte des biblische- talmudischen Eheschliessungsrechts: Eine rechtsvergleichend-historische Studie. MVAG 24– 25. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920. Neufeld, E.“Inalienability of Mobile and Immobile Pledges in the Laws of the Bible.” RIDA 9 (1962) 42. Piattelli, D. “The Marriage Contract and Bill of Divorce in Ancient Hebrew Law.” JLA 4 (1981) 66–78. Phillips, A. “Nebalah—A Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct.” VT 25 (1975) 237–42. Preuss, J. Biblical and Talmudic Medicine. Tr. F. Rosner. New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1978. 477–79. Reviv, H. The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Rofé, A. “Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of Covenant.” Hen 9 (1987) 131–59.——— . Mavo˒ le-sefer Devarim. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988. 147–50 (Heb.). Scharbert, J. “Ehe und Eheschließung in der Rechtssprache des Pentateuch und beim Chronisten.” In FS W. Kornfeld. 1977. 213–25. Skaist, A. J. “Studies in Ancient Mesopotamian Family Law Pertaining to Marriage and Divorce.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1963. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Order No. 63–7087. Tigay, J. “Examination of the Accused Bride in 4Q159: Forensic Medicine at Qumran.” In Comparative Studies in Honor of Yohanan Muffs. Ed. E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus. JANESCU 22 (1993) 129–34.———. “Excursus 20: Accusations of Premarital Unchastity.” In Deuteronomy. 1996. 476–77. Tosato, A. “Il Linguaggio Matrimoniale Veterotestamentario: Stato degli Studi.” AION 43 (1983) 135–60. Wenham, G. J. “Betûlāh—A Girl of Marriageable Age.”VT 22 (1972) 326–48. Westbrook, R. “Old Babylonian Marriage Law.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 1982. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Order No. 82– 21763. Westermarck, E. Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco. London: Macmillan, 1914. 159, 228–29, 246. Yaron, R. “On Divorce in Old Testament Times.”RIDA 4 (1957) 117–28. Bibliography for 22:22–24

Daube, D. “Concerning Methods of Bible Criticism: Late Law in Early Narratives.” ArOr 17.1 (1949) 88–89.———. “To Be Found Doing Wrong.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 3–13. David, M. “Overspel volgens Deuteronomium 22, 22ss.” JEOL 8 (1942) 650–54. Dempster, S. The Deuteronomic Formula kî yimmāṣē˒ in the Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: An Evaluation of David Daube’s Theory.” RB 91 (1984) 188–211. Dion, P. E. “Tu feras disparaitre le mal du milieu de toi.” RB 87 (1980) 321–49, esp. 333. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SLR 19 (1967) 957–58.Labuschagne, C. J. “The Emphasizing Particle gam and Its Connotations.” In FS Th. C. Vriezen. 1966. 193– 203. Locher, C. “Wie Einzigartig war das altisraelitische Recht?” Jud 38 (1982) 130– 40. McKeating, H. “A Response to Dr. Phillips.” JSOT 20 (1981) 25–26.———. “Sanctions against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections on Methodology in the Study of Old Testament Ethics.” JSOT 11 (1979) 57–72. Mezger, F. “The Origin of a Specific Rule on Adultery in the Germanic Laws.” JAOS 68 (1948) 145–48. Phillips, A. “Another Example of Family Law.” VT 30 (1980) 240–45.———. “Another Look at Adultery.” JSOT 20 (1981) 3–25.———. “A Response to Dr. McKeating [JSOT 20 (1981) 25–26].” JSOT 22 (1981) 142–43.———. “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel.” VT 23 (1973) 349– 61; 25 (1975) 237–41. Tigay, J. “Adultery.” EncJud 2:313–15. Westbrook, R. “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” RB97 (1990) 542–80. Bibliography for 22:25–29

Boyce, R. N. The Cry to God in the Old Testament. SBLDS 103. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 1985. 217–20.Hiebert, R. J. V. “Deuteronomy 22:28–29 and Its Premishnaic Interpretations.” CBQ 56 (1994) 203–20. Otto, E. “Zur Stellung der Frau in den ältesten Rechtstexten des Alten Testamentes (Ex 20, 14; 22, 15f.)—Wider die hermeneutische Naivität im Umgang mit dem Alten Testament.” ZEE 26 .JBL 81 (1962) 67–69 ”. אשר לא־ארשה Weiss, D. H. “A N.ote on.305–279 (1982)

Translation and Prosodic Analysis False Accusation of Premarital Unchastity—The Man Is Fined [(6:8):(6:6):(6:6):(8:6)]

13 When a man takes / a woman // 9 2 and he goes in to her / and then he hates her // 16 2 14 and he makes baseless charges / against her / 15 2_ And he brings on her / a bad name // and he says / 19 3 “This woman / I have taken as a wife / 14 2 and when I came to her / I found she / was not a virgin” // 25 3_ 15 And the father of the girl / and her mother \ shall take // 16 2 and they shall bring out / evidence of the girl’s virginity / 18 2 to the elders of the city / at the gate // 14 2_ 16 And the father of the girl / shall say \ to the elders // 19 2 “I gave / my daughter / to this man / as a wife / 19 4_ And he hates her // 7 1 17 and behold he / has made up baseless charges / saying / 22 3 ‘I did not find your daughter / to be a virgin’ / 17 2_ But here is / evidence of the virginity of my daughter” // 12 2 and shall spread out / the garment / 9 2 before / the elders of the city // 10 2_ 18 And the elders of that city / shall take \ the man // 21 2 and they shall flog / him // 9 2 19 And they shall fine him / a hundred pieces of silver / 16 2 and they shall give it / to the father of the girl / 16 2_ For he has brought / an evil name / on \ a virgin in Israel // 20 3 and she shall be his wife / 9 1 _2 15 ס // he may not divorce her / all his days

True Accusation of Premarital Unchastity—The Woman Shall Die [7:7]

20 But if / this \ charge is true // 15 2 the girl was found / not to have been a virgin // 16 2 21 Then they shall bring out the girl / 13 1 to the entrance of her father’s house / 11 1 and the men of her city shall stone her with stones / 23 1_ And she shall die / for she has done folly / in Israel / 24 3 committing fornication / in her father’s house // 10 2 _2 13 ס // and you shall purge the evil / from your midst

Adultery with a Married Woman—Both Parties Shall Die [4:5]

22 When a man is found / lying \ with the wife of another man / 23 2 then both of them / shall die / 11 2_ The man / who lay with the woman / and the woman // 21 3 _2 15 ס // and you shall purge the evil / from Israel

Adultery with a Betrothed Virgin—Both Parties Shall Die [(5:5):(5:4)]

23 When there is / a virgin / who is betrothed \ to a man // 23 3 and a man finds her / in the city / 13 2_ And he lies with her // 7 1 24 then you shall bring them both / to the gate / of that city / 21 3 and you shall stone them with stones / 16 1_ And they shall die / 6 1 the maiden / because / she did not cry out in the city / 22 3 and the man / 6 1_ Because he humbled / his neighbor’s wife // 18 2 _2 14 ס // and you shall purge the evil / from your midst

Rape of an Engaged Virgin—The Man Shall Die [(9:6):(5:5)]

25 But if it is in the field / 6 1 where the man finds / the girl \ who is betrothed / 21 2 and the man seizes her / 11 1_ And he lies with her by force // 7 1 then he shall die / the man / who slept with her / he alone // 20 4_ 26 And to the girl / you shall do nothing / 15 2 the girl did not commit / a mortal sin // 12 2 for this / is like a man who attacks his neighbor / 18 2_ And he murders him / so / is this matter // 18 3 27 for in the field / he found her // 11 2_ The betrothed / girl / cried out / 18 3 _2 10 ס // but there was no one / to save her

Rape of an Unengaged Virgin—The Man Is Fined [6:9]

28 When a man finds / a virgin / 16 2 who has never been betrothed / and he seizes her / 17 2 and he lies with her by force // and they are found // 13 2_ 29 Then the man who lay with her / shall give / 16 2 to the father of the girl / fifty pieces of silver // 16 2 And she shall be his wife / because / he has humbled her / 16 3 _2 14 ס // he may not divorce her / all his days

Notes

15.a. Reading the ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 15.b. Tg. and Tg. Ps.-J. add byt dyn, “house of judgment.” Prosodic analysis favors MT.

16.a. Reading the ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. .this”). Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,הזאת =) b. LXX adds ταύτην.16

”.to her“ , לָ הּ a. A few Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and LXX add.17

and they shall spread out.” It should be“ ,ופרשׂו b. Reading 3 sg with SP for MT.17 noted that this emendation does not add an additional word in the Hebrew text.

18.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. .that.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,ההוא b. One Heb. MS, SP, and LXX add.18

19.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. without the prepositional prefix) for) שׁלחה b-b. One Heb. MS and SP read.19 .to send her (away).” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,לשׁלחה MT

.this.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,הזה a. One Heb. MS and LXX omit.20

20.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 21.a-a. Omitted in LXX; many Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and Tg.MS .all.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,כל add

to commit fornication,” with no“ ,לזנות for MT להזנות b-b. SP and LXX read.21 change in meaning. 21.c. LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl. Codex MSS of Vg. read de medio Israel, .( מקרב ישׂראל =) ”in the midst of Israel“ 22.a. Reading mûnāḥ with pāsēq as conj.

23.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 25.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. you [pl.] shall do,” for“ , תַ ﬠֲ שׂ וּ a. SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. read.26 you [sg.] shall do”; LXX reads ποιήσεται, “it shall be done,” i.e., “she“ , תַ ﬠֲ שֶׂ ה MT .( תֵ ﬠָ שֶׂ ה =) ”(shall suffer (nothing

”.for“ , כִּ י b. Two Heb. MSS, LXX, and Syr. add.26 28.a. LXX reads 3 sg. to send her (away),” for“ ,לשׁלחה a-a. Some Heb. MSS and Vg. read.29 ”.(send her (away“ ,שׁלחה MT

Form/Structure/Setting The six laws in 22:13–29 are sharply focused on the overt meaning of the seventh commandment forbidding adultery, with the command itself repeated at the center of a concentric structural design: A False accusation of premarital unchastity—man fined, no divorce 22:13–19 B True accusation of premarital unchastity—woman dies 22:20–21 X Adultery with a married woman or betrothed virgin—both die 22:22–24 B′ Rape of betrothed virgin in the field—man dies 22:25–27 A′ Rape of unbetrothed virgin—man fined, marriage, no divorce 22:28–29 On one side of the central law on adultery with a married woman or a betrothed virgin (vv 22–24), we have two laws on the matter of premarital unchastity: one in which the charges brought by the man are false and he is flogged and fined one hundred pieces of silver (vv 13–19), and the other where the charges are true and the woman is executed by stoning (vv 20–21). On the other side of the center, we find two laws on the matter of rape: one where the man only is condemned to death, in the case of rape of a betrothed virgin in the field (vv 25–27), and the other where the man is required to pay fifty pieces of silver to the girl’s father and marry the woman without the possibility of divorce (vv 28–29). The internal symmetry in terms of punishment is remarkable in the above concentric structure. In each section of the outer frame (vv 13–19 and 28–29), the man is fined and “he may not divorce her all his days” (vv 19 and 29). In the first half of the inner frame the woman only is executed, because “she did not cry out” for help (vv 20–21); whereas in the second half it is the man only who is executed, because the woman did cry out and there was no one there to hear her (vv 25–27). In the center, both parties are executed for committing adultery (vv 22–24). All of these laws are expanded in story form within the book of Genesis, as Carmichael has shown (LNB, 210–20). In terms of rhetorical markers within the MT, the laws in 22:13–29 are divided into six sections, each of which ends with the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker: vv 13–19, 20– 21, 22, 23–24, 25–27, and 28–29. Further indications of overall structure are present in the two occurrences of the Numeruswechsel in v24. The first two occurrences of second singular forms of the verb and pronominal suffixes appear in the formulaic expression “you shall purge the evil from your midst” at the end of vv 21 and 22. The rest of the material in vv 13–22 is in the third person, except for quotation of direct speech in the first person in vv 14 and 16–17. The two occurrences of second plural verbal forms in mark the center of the larger structure of vv 13–29 as a (וסקלתם and והוצאתם) v 24 whole. The shift back to second singular forms at the end of v 24 occurs again within the same formulaic expression “you shall purge the evil from your midst,” which appears here for the third and final time within vv 13–29. The issue at hand in the first law is an accusation of premarital unchastity on the part of the husband of a new bride. In terms of internal symmetry, the content of this literary unit may be outlined as follows: A A man attempts to put aside his wife on baseless charges 22:13–14 B The girl’s parents present evidence to the elders 22:15 X The girl’s father states his case 22:16–17a B′ The girl’s father presents evidence before the elders 22:17b A′ The man is flogged, fined, and may never divorce the woman 22:18–19 The central point in this structure is the statement of the case itself by the girl’s father: “I gave my daughter to this man as a wife; and he hates her, and behold he has made up baseless charges saying, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin’ ” (vv 16–17a). The inner frame concerns the evidence produced by the parents that the charges are false (vv 15 and 17b), whereas the outer frame moves from a description of the legal issue (vv 13–14) to the decision rendered by the elders in such a case (vv 18–19). The second layout (vv 20–21) deals with what is to be done if the charges are substantiated. There are puzzling features about this law that lend substance to the symbolic reading proposed by Carmichael. First, the bride’s parents are to present the so-called wedding night cloth and could fake it. “Talmudic sources report that in some places the bride was searched to make certain that she did not bring an already stained cloth into the nuptial chamber (the groom was likewise searched to ensure that he did not bring a clean cloth to switch with the legitimately stained one in order to detroy the evidence of virginity … (Tosef. Ket. 1:4ff.; TJ Ket. 1:1, 25a; 4:4, 28c; and Ket. 12a)” (Tigay [1996] 539 n. 1). The statement that the absence of the bloodstained cloth is sufficient evidence to convict the bride appears to be contrary to the normal requirement of two witnesses to a crime involving capital punishment (17:2; 19:15). “It also overlooks the fact that not all virgins have intact hymens or bleed the first time they have sexual relations, a fact also recognized in talmudic sources” (Tigay [1996] 476). Moreover, the law seems to be in contradiction to others that indicate that such sexual misconduct calls for execution only if the girl in question is betrothed at the time (see vv 23–24 and Exod 22:15–16). In short, the law as stated is not practicable. “Even the avowedly literalistic Karaite exegesis agrees that the matter cannot hinge on the cloth alone and that witnesses (attendants who examined the cloth or the bride at the time of the marriage) are required. A fragmentary paraphrase of this law from Qumran states that the matter is to be determined on the basis of a physical examination of the bride by trustworthy women shortly after consummation of the marriage” (Tigay [1996] 476). Driver and Miles have suggested that in comparable laws in ancient Mesopotamia “the penalties are only inserted in terrorem and will never be inflicted” (The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1952–55] 1:204 n. 3). This view is similar to rabbinic interpretation of the law about the insubordinate son, which was for educational purposes and not to be enforced. The purpose of the law would then be rhetorical as a means of condemning premarital sex and deterring girls from such activity. “It would provide ammunition for parents to use in warning their daughters against unchastity, much as they could have used 21:18–21 in warning sons against insubordination” (Tigay [1996] 477). Otto has noted what he calls a concentrically arranged redaction of 22:23–27, which may be outlined as follows (“Aspects of Legal Reforms,” 190 n. 99): כי יהיה נער בתולה A “When a virgin is betrothed …” 22:23 מארשׂה לאישׁ

22:23 מצאה ”B “(a man) finds her

22:23 בעיר ”C “in the city

Stone them with stones to X 22:24 purge the evil from your midst

22:25 בשׂדה ”C′ “in the field

22:25 מצאה ”B′ “(where the man) finds her “(where) the man finds the betrothed A′ 22:25 את־הנער המארשׂה ”girl

The center of this structure is marked by the Numeruswechsel at the beginning and end of v 24. “This concentric structure precludes a traditio-historical claim that 22:25–27 is a later addition to an original unit in 22:23–24” (Otto, “Aspects of Legal Reforms,” 190 n. 99, against Stuhlman, JSOT 53 [1992] 58–60). The two laws on adultery with a married woman (v 22) or a betrothed virgin (vv 23– 24) form a literary subunit that may be outlined as follows: A If a man has sex with another man’s wife, “purge the evil” 22:22 B If a man has sex with a betrothed virgin in the city 22:23 X Bring them both to the city gate and stone them to death 22:24a B′ The woman because she did not cry out, and the man 22:24b A′ Because he “humbled” his neighbor’s wife—“purge the evil” 22:24c The central issue in this reading is the death penalty itself, which is imposed on both the man and woman guilty of adultery, whether the woman is the wife of another man (v 22) or betrothed to another man (23). Both the man and the woman are to be stoned to death, to purge the evil from the midst of Israel. The law on the rape of a betrothed virgin in 22:25–27 may also be outlined in concentric fashion: A If a man finds a betrothed girl in the field and rapes her 22:25a B Only the man shall be put to death 22:25b X Do nothing to the girl, for she did not commit a mortal sin 22:26a B′ It is like the case of a man who murders his neighbor 22:26b A′ The man found her in the field—there was no one to save her 22:27 The focus of attention in this structure is on the woman, for she did not commit a mortal sin and so should not be punished (v 26a). When the man found her in the field and raped her, there was no one to save her (vv 25a and 27). Thus only the man is to be put to death (v 25b), because the situation is comparable to the case where a man murders his neighbor (v 26b). According to Carmichael (LNB, 210–14), the law of the wedding-night cloth (vv 13–21) stands in sharp contrast with what happened to Joseph. Joseph’s garment in the hands of Potiphar’s wife falsely condemned him to prison for a sexual crime he did not commit. The case of the slandered bride points us back to Jacob’s marriage to Leah instead of Rachel (Gen 29:15–31), which took place on the wedding night when Jacob was to marry Rachel. As in the law, Jacob after his wedding night does not wish to marry his new bride. A second story that appears to be shaped, at least in part, by the laws of marital and sexual misconduct of Deut 22:13–29 is that of Dina and the Canaanite prince Shechem, son of Hamor, in Gen 34 (see Carmichael, LNB, 213–14). The same phrase used to condemn Shechem for his misconduct with Dinah is applied to the woman’s premarital activity in the law: the girl “has done folly in Israel committing fornication in her father’s house” (Deut 22:21; cf. Gen 34:7). Moreover, the Genesis story describes Shechem’s offense as treating Dinah like a harlot (Gen 34:31). The law about adultery in v 22 appears to have shaped, at least in part, the stories about ’s relationship with both the pharaoh and Abimelech (Carmichael, LNB, (בעלת בעל) ”It is noteworthy that the technical designation of “a man’s wife .(16–214 occurs within the Hebrew Bible only in Gen 20:3 and Deut 22:22, in the context of references to capital punishment. The law of the seduction of a betrothed woman (Deut 22:23–27) plays a role in the shaping of the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Carmichael,LNB, 217–18). For Potiphar’s wife to be in the clear, if the story is shaped by the law here in Deuteronomy, she must either cry out for help or be sufficiently distant from human habitation to make such cries futile (v 25). The analogy of the man who is murdered in a remote setting (v 26) also applies to the larger story of Joseph, who was almost murdered in such a setting before his brothers changed their minds and sold him into slavery instead (Gen 37:17–20). The law of the seduction of an unbetrothed woman (Deut 22:28–29) points us once again to the story of Dinah’s plight at the hands of Shechem (Gen 34; see Carmichael, LNB, 218–20). Dinah was not with her own people when the incident occurred, and hence a cry from her would not have been heard by her brothers. She had ,Dinah (ענה) ”gone “to visit the women of the land” (Gen 34:1). Shechem “humbled appears in the law of Deut ענה treating her as a harlot (Gen 34:31). The same verb 22:29. The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 22:13–29 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

22:13– (= 3 × (= 3 × 78 + 51 = 129 21 26) 17) 22:22 16 + 3 = 19

22:23– (= 17 + (= 7 × 76 + 43 = 119 29 26) 17) 22:13– 12 + 14 = 26 14 22:13– (= 2 × (= 2 × (= 4 × 34 + 34 = 68 17 17) 17) 17) 22:18– 44 + 17 = 61 21 22:22– (= 2 × 73 + 34 = 107 27 17) 22:23– (= 2 × 34 + 8 = 42 24 17) 22:25– (= 2 × 23 + 23 = 46 27 23) (= 10 × 22:1–12 109 + 61 = 170 17) 22:13– (= 10 × 170 + 97 = 267 29 17)

The laws on marriage and sexual misconduct in 22:13–29 are carefully arranged in two major sections (vv 13–21 and 23–29), with the basic citation of the seventh commandment (forbidding adultery) in the center (v 22). In the first half of this mathematical composition there are 78 (= 3 × 26) words before ʾatnāḥ and 51 (= 3 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ, an arrangement that symbolically intensifies the divine presence in this text. The total number of words in the second half (vv 23–29) comes to 119 (= 7 × 17), which reinforces this intensification. Moreover, there are 43 (= 17 + 26) words after ʾatnāḥhere to communicate the same message yet a third time. Within the body of the text we find six subunits that correspond, for the most part, with the prosodic subunits found in the prosodic analysis here on independent grounds. There are 26 words in vv 13–14, which presents the false accusation of premarital unchastity. When this text is combined with the following subsection that presents the case for the defense on the part of the parents of the accused girl (vv 15–17), we have 34 (= 2 × 17) words before and after ʾatnāḥ. When these two subunits are combined with the decision on the part of the elders before whom the case was brought (vv 18– 19), we find that the total number of 98 words is divided so as to have 26 words in the subordinate clauses of 22:13–19. Moreover, the law on false accusation of premarital unchastity (22:13–19) is tied together with the law on true accusation of premarital unchastity (22:20–21) by the fact that vv 18–21 have 17 words after ʾatnāḥ. The law prohibiting adultery with a betrothed virgin (vv 23–24), which has 34 (= 2 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ, is tied together with what follows by the fact that there are 34 words after ʾatnāḥ in 22:22–27. The law on rape of an engaged virgin (vv 25–27) has 23 words before and after ʾatnāḥ, an arrangement that signifies that all this hidden כבוד) ”information on the use of the two divine-name numbers was done to the “glory = 11 + 2 + 6 + 4 = 32) of God. When chap. 22 is examined as a whole, in terms of the use of the divine-name numbers, we find that there are 170 (= 10 × 17) words in vv 1–12 and the same number of words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 13–29. The message here seems to be a reminder that we are dealing with the Ten Commandments, which is the very word of God that Moses received at the beginning.

Comment 13–14 The situation here is one in which a man’s feelings toward his new wife have to the extent that “he makes baseless charges (ושׂנאה) ”changed and “he hates her against her” by bringing “on her a bad name,” that is, he makes public the charge that she was not a virgin at the time of the consummation of the marriage. The translated here as “baseless charges,” has been translated in ,עלילת דברים phrase different ways. LXX, Vg., Ibn Ezra, and also KJV (“occasions”) interpret the circumstance,” “occasion.” Mayes has noted“ ,עילה from Aramaic עלילת word in biblical עלל that this sense is not otherwise attested for the root (10–309 [1981]) Hebrew, where the hithpael has the meaning “to act wantonly” or “to act ruthlessly” (cf. Num 22:29; Judg 19:25; 1 Sam 6:6; 31:4). The RSV thus translates the word as “shameful conduct,” and the NRSV paraphrases to read “slandering her.” The translation here follows Craigie ([1976] 291) in the sense of “wantonness of words,” or baseless accusations. Tigay has drawn attention to a parallel situation in Arab culture: “if a groom found his bride not to have been a virgin, he turned her out immediately, and if her family refunded the bride-price, he was obligated to keep quiet. If, however, he spoke out, the girl was examined. If she was found guilty, irrespective of whether she lost her virginity long before or recently, she was executed, but if she was innocent, the groom was executed” ([1996] 204; see A. Musil, Arabia Petraea, 3 vols. [Vienna: Hoelder, 1908] 3:208). Translated literally, “I did not find her to be a virgin” would be in her,” that is, her hymen was not intact or she did [בתולים] I did not find virginity“ as referring to proof בתולים not bleed (see v 17 below). Wenham interprets the word of menstruation immediately before marriage, meaning the bride is not already pregnant (VT 22 [1972] 331–33). This interpretation is necessary, as Mayes has observed virgin,” is“ ,בתולה if Wenham’s interpretation of the related word ,(310 [1981]) correct (see the Comment on v 23). 15–17 Since the legal responsibility for defending the young woman rested on the parents, “the girl’s father and her mother shall … bring out evidence of the girl’s or the cloth spotted by the girl’s blood ,(השׂמלה) ”virginity,” which is “the garment when her hymen was broken. It was not uncommon within Jewish and Arab communities in the Middle East, until recent times, for the “wedding cloth” to be displayed by the proud parents of the bride (Westermarck, Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco, 159, 228; Granqvist, Marriage Conditions, 2:127–30; I. Ben-Ami and D. Noy, eds., Studies in Marriage Customs [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974] 54, 174, 260, 262; and Karaite sources cited by Malul, JESHO 32 [1989] 264; all cited by Tigay [1996] which was normally an outer garment that ,(השׂמלה) ”n. 47). The “wedding cloth 384 was also used as a cover while sleeping (cf. 24:13), was “spread out … before the elders of the city,” which is another instance in which the elders exercised jurisdiction in matters of family law. On the meaning of “at the gate” see the Comment on 17:5. “The custom that virgins wed on Wednesdays arose because courts held session on Thursdays; thus a man who suspected his bride of premarital unchastity could press charges immediately (Mish. Ket. 1:1; Tosef. Ket. 1:1)” (Tigay [1996] 384 n. 48). 18–19 The husband receives a triple punishment: “they shall flog him,” “they shall fine him a hundred pieces of silver,” and “he may not divorce her all his days,” which provides her the needed economic protection for survival. It should be noted with is not (ויסרו אתו) ”Mayes ([1981] 310) that the translation “they shall flog him certain, even though the ancient versions understood it in this way. Apart from this has the meaning of “admonish” or יסר passage, and possibly 21:18, the verbal root “discipline” more generally. Mayes suggests the translation “punish him,” with the following verse prescribing the nature of the punishment: the fine of “a hundred pieces of silver,” which is normally interpreted as double the bride-price for a virgin (however, see v 29 below and Exod 22:16). It should be noted with Mayes that it is the father’s reputation that is at stake here ([1981] 310), even though it is the woman who has been slandered. The father is implicitly charged with deceitfully passing off his daughter as a virgin. The concluding statement that the man “has brought an evil name on a virgin of Israel” suggests that his accusation would raise doubts about the character of all Israelite girls, as the Sifre indicates (Tigay [1996] 205). 20–21 If the accusation turns out to be correct, “the girl was found not to have been a virgin,” the girl was to be taken “to the entrance of her father’s house,” since she is guilty of “committing fornication in her father’s house.” Such action would also be a form of communal judgment against the father. Tigay cites an interesting parallel from the Code of Hammurabi (§21): “where a man who breaks into a house is to be executed in front of the breach that he made” ([1996] 206). Execution by stoning (“the men of her city shall stone her with stones”) was also required in the law of the insubordinate son (see the Comment on 21:21 and 13:11). On the statement “you shall purge the evil” see the Comment on 13:6. 22 The prohibition of adultery is the seventh of the Ten Commandments (see 5:17). In such cases, “both of them shall die—the man who lay with the woman and the woman.” According to Tigay ([1996] 206–7), other law collections from the ancient Near East also prescribe capital punishment for adultery (Code of Hammurabi, §129; Middle Assyrian Laws, A §§14–16; Hittite Laws, §§197–98). But in these other cultures the offense is considered to be one that is done against the husband of the woman, who may choose to spare his wife, and her lover, by imposing a lesser penalty. There is no clear evidence that adulterers were actually executed in ancient Israel, though that is clearly the implication of the story of the woman taken in adultery as presented in John 8:1–11. The story of Judah and Tamar, in which her death was ordered for what was thought to be adultery, may simply be a story form of the law in question, as Carmichael’s research suggests. The warning in Prov 6:32–35 implies the right of a husband to accept a financial payment from an adulterer, even if his normal inclination might be otherwise. Once again, as in the case of the law of the insubordinate son (21:18–21) and the accused bride (22:13–21), we appear to be dealing with a law that was seldom, if ever, put in practice (see Greenberg, “More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law,” 1–4; McKeating, JSOT 11 [1979] 57–72; Phillips, JSOT 20 [1981] 3–26; Westbrook, RB 97 [1990] 542–80; and Tigay, EncJud2:313–15). (בתולה) ”Wenham has argued that the word translated here as “virgin 24–23 should be rendered “girl of marriageable age” (VT 22 [1972] 326–48). The laws on premarital unchastity in 22:13–21, however, imply the subject of virginity in the laws that follow in vv 25–29 as well, which are to be read over against vv 13–21 in the concentric structural design of the seven laws on marriage and sexual misconduct in 22:13–23:1. In cases where a man has sexual intercourse with “a virgin who is betrothed … in the city,” both parties are to be brought “to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones.” The woman’s guilt in the matter is determined on the basis of whether she was a willing partner. Again, we have a law that is difficult actually to apply. Philo, Josephus, and early rabbinic sources broaden the law, as Tigay has noted: “whether in town or in the country, evidence that there was no one who could have saved her, that she resisted, or that her life was threatened if she resisted, would establish innocence; evidence to the contrary would establish guilt” ([1996] 207). 25–27 If the girl is raped in the open country and the man lies with her by force, then only the man shall die who slept with her. In such cases, the girl is a victim and not a participant—“the girl did not commit a mortal sin,” for she “cried out, but there was no one to save her.” A text from among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (11QTemple 66:4–5) attempts to clarify the situation by adding: “in a far-away place, hidden from the city.” In subsequent Jewish tradition, the statement “to the girl you shall do nothing” became the basis for the principle that one who violates the law under compulsion is not liable (b. Ned. 27a; Sefer Ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 573; cited by Tigay [1996] 385 n.67). Fishbane has interpreted v 26 as an exegesis of 19:2–13 (Biblical Interpretation, 217–20). 28–29 Though sexual intercourse with an unbetrothed virgin is against the law, it is אשׁר לא־) ”not a capital offense. The translation “who has never been betrothed is that of Weiss (JBL 81 [1962] 67–69), who noted the use of the passive (ארשׂה perfect here rather than the passive participle of vv 23, 25, and 27. The compensation to the father is for loss in the expected bride price he would normally receive. In such cases, “the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the girl fifty pieces of silver,” often interpreted as the normal bride-price for a virgin (cf. also Exod 22:15–16). Tigay has argued convincingly, however, that “if the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average bride-price, the fifty pieces of silver paid by the rapist represents a combination of an average bride-price [thirty pieces of silver] plus punitive damages.” It should be noted that the law here deals only with a girl for whom a bride- price has never been paid. The law concludes with the statement that the rapist must marry the girl and that “he may not divorce her all his days.” Once again, we have a law that runs contrary to common practice, for in subsequent Jewish tradition, in cases of both seduction and rape, both the girl and her father can refuse the marriage. Tigay has noted parallels in Middle Assyrian Laws ([1996] 209), where “the rapist must pay triple the normal bride-price and marry the girl (if the father is willing) without right of divorce. If the rapist has a wife, a typically Mesopotamian measure-for-measure punishment is added: the girl’s father can have the rapist’s wife raped and then keep her” (Middle Assyrian Laws, A §55).

Explanation Three situations are addressed in the laws on marital and sexual misconduct in 22:13–29, each of which is in two parts. The first situation concerns a husband’s accusation of premarital unchastity on the part of the woman (vv 13–21). If the charges are proved false, the man is to be flogged and fined one hundred pieces of silver (vv 13– 19). If the charges are proved true, the woman is to be stoned to death at “the entrance of her father’s house” (vv20–21). The specific location of the execution indicates parental responsibility for the sexual behavior of their children. The instruction that execution be carried out by “men of her city” indicates that the entire community is involved in the incident. Sexual misconduct is not simply a private affair. The community also suffers as a consequence. As John Maxwell put it, “There is no such thing as a ‘casual affair.’ One need only read the statistics concerning abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, and government assistance for unwed mothers to realize that private sexual sins quickly become public matters of concern” (Deuteronomy [1987] 262–63). The law here encourages premarital sexual purity and the value of sexual abstinence prior to marriage. The second situation addressed is the matter of adultery, which includes sexual intercourse with a betrothed virgin as well as with another man’s wife. Both parties are to be executed. Though the means of execution is not indicated in the matter of adultery with a married woman (v 22), it was presumably by stoning as in the case of adultery with a betrothed virgin (v 24). This is clearly the method of execution indicated for the woman caught in adultery in John 8:5. The third situation addressed is the matter of rape. If a man rapes a betrothed virgin in the open country, the man alone is to be executed, since the screams of the woman would not have been heard (vv 25–27). If a man rapes an unbetrothed woman in the city, it is considered seduction, requiring marriage and paying the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver (vv 28–29), as a dowry. In light of what is often called the modern sexual revolution, the laws on premarital sex in this text seem quaint to some and certainly out of touch with reality. Nonetheless, this law teaches that parents are to be concerned with the actions of their children in matters of sexual conduct. In the teaching of Jesus the ideals reach greater heights, equating lust with the act of adultery itself (Matt 5:27–28). Paul argued that the human body is to be considered the temple of the Holy Spirit and treated accordingly (Eph 5:32).

4. Prohibition of Marrying One’s Father’s Wife (23:1 [Eng. 22:30]) Bibliography

Baker, D. W. “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum.” VT 30 (1980) 129– 36. Carmichael, C. M. “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandals as a Female Gesture of Contempt.” JBL 96 (1977) 321–36, esp. 326, 333.———. “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT 32 (1982) 395–415, esp. 396. ———.”‘Treading’ in the Book of Ruth.” ZAW 92 (1980) 248–66 (259). Dahan, G. “Les interprétations juives dans les commentaires du Pentateuque de Pierre le Chantre.” In FS B. Smalley.1985. 131–55. Daniel, C. “Esséniens et Eunuques.” RevQ 6 (1967/68) 353–90. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 31. Halévy, J.“Recherches bibliques: Le Deutéronome.” RSEHA 8 (1900) 107. Hoffner, H. A. “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East.” In FS C. H. Gordon.1973. 81–90. Phillips, A. “Uncovering the Father’s Skirt.” VT 30 (1980) 38–43. Smith, W. R. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. 1903. 104–11. Tsevat, M.“Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel.” JSS 3 (1958) 237–43.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Prohibition of Marrying One’s Father’s Wife [2:2]

23:1(22:30) A man shall not take / his father’s wife // 14 2 2 12 ס // and he shall not remove / his father’s garment

Form/Structure/Setting The law prohibiting marriage to one’s father’s wife (23:1) functions as a literary bridge connecting two larger groups of laws on matters of social ethics (21:10– 22:29 and 23:2–26 [Eng. 23:1–25]). It is also in parallel with a somewhat similar law prohibiting remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried (24:1–4), which functions in the same manner connecting the laws of 23:2–26 and 24:5–25:19, as the following outline indicates: A Marriage/war, true religion, and illicit mixtures 21:10–22:29 B Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 X Laws on social ethics (true religion) 23:2–26 B′ Prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried 24:1–4 A′ Marriage/war and true religion (on the poor and vulnerable) 24:5–25:19 Within this structure, 23:1 serves as an inclusion with the law on marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10–14) and as an introduction to the laws on the assembly of YHWH and the sanctity of the military camp (23:2–15). By the term “true religion” I mean concern for the protection of the poor and vulnerable, as the letter of James put it: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27 NRSV). The law in 23:1 is also part of a series of seven laws (21:10–14; 22:13–23:1) that function as a “commentary” on the seventh commandment (5:18; prohibiting adultery) within another concentric structure (21:10–23:1), which may be outlined as follows: A Marriage with a woman captured in war 21:10–14 B Two family laws pertaining to children 21:15–21 X Ten laws on true religion and illicit mixtures 21:22–22:12 B′ Five family laws on marital and sexual misconduct 22:13–29 A′ Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 Two of the seven laws on matters pertaining to the seventh commandment (prohibiting adultery) make up the outer frame (21:10–14 and 23:1) of this structure, and the other five are in the second half of the inner frame, the five family laws on marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–29). Another way of looking at the structure of 21:10–23:1, which is shaped by the seventh commandment (5:18), is to place that very law as it appears in22:22–24 at the center of the outline: A Marriage with a woman captured in war (+ 12 laws [21:15–22:12]) 21:10–14 B Two laws regarding accusations of premarital unchastity 22:13–21 X Adultery with a married woman or a betrothed virgin 22:22–24 B′ Two laws on the rape of a virgin 22:25–29 A′ Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 The seventh commandment (5:18) in the center of this structure applies to a betrothed virgin as well as a woman who is married to another man. The inner frame moves from two laws on premarital unchastity (22:13–19), to two laws on rape (22:25–29). The outer frame is made up of two laws on marriage, which are part of a series of four such laws on marriage functioning as a framework around seven laws on matters of social ethics (23:2–26), as the following outline shows: A Marriage with a woman captured in war (+ 17 laws on social ethics [21:15– 22:29]) 21:10–14 B Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 X Seven laws on matters of social ethics (“true religion”) 23:2–26 B′ Prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried 24:1–4 A′ Deferral of new husband from military service 24:5 The two laws in the outer frame of this structure deal with both marriage and war (i.e., commandments six and seven). The two laws in the inner frame of this structure (23:1 and 24:1–4) function as bridges connecting two larger structures and belonging to both of them. The seven laws in the center of the previous structure may be outlined within the larger literary structure of Deut 23–25: A From forbidden marriage to sanctity of the military camp 23:1–15 B Law protecting the poor and vulnerable: asylum for escaped slaves 23:16–17 X Prohibition of “holy” prostitution 23:18–19 B′ Three laws protecting the poor and vulnerable 23:20–26 A′ From forbidden remarriage to Holy War (war with Amalek) 24:1–25:19 The outer frame in this structure opens with the law prohibiting marriage to one’s father’s wife (23:1), which introduces a lesser structure that concludes with a law pertaining to the sanctity of the military camp (23:10–15). It continues with a law prohibiting remarriage to a former wife who has remarried (25:1–4), which introduces a group of fourteen laws, concluding with one on YHWH’s Holy War (25:17–19, which is a command to remember Amalekite aggression in the exodus from Egypt). The inner frame is made up of four laws protecting the poor and vulnerable (true religion), in the familiar three-plus-one structural pattern of Jungian psychology. The center of this structure has the character of a “riddle at the middle” in the prohibition of “holy” prostitution (23:18–19). In terms of prosodic structural units, vv 13–29 are divided into four sections: vv 13– 19, 20–21, 22–24, and 25–29. This suggests the possibility of reading 23:1 as the fifth part of a literary unit in a five-part concentric structure; 23:1 forms an inclusion with the law on attempting to put aside one’s wife on false charges (22:13–19). The concentric design of 22:13–23:1 in this reading may be outlined as follows: A Attempt to put away one’s wife on false charges—man fined 22:13–19 B Premarital unchastity—woman dies 22:20–21 X Adultery with a married or a betrothed woman—both die 22:22–24 B′ Rape of betrothed or unbetrothed virgin—man dies or is fined 22:25–29 A′ Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 The law on adultery (with a married woman, v 22; or a betrothed woman, vv 23–24) remains in the center. The inner frame has the law on premarital unchastity, in which the woman is executed (vv 20–21), set over against the two laws on rape, in which the man is executed (vv 25–27) or fined (vv 28–29). Further evidence for this reading is the manner in which 22:13 and 23:1 form an inclusion around the whole with repetition of ”,When a man takes a woman“ , כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה :specific words and phrases ”,A man shall not take his father’s wife“ ,לא־יקח אישׁ את־אשׁת אביו in 22:13 and in23:1. Moreover, the attempt to make these parallel lines virtually identical helps to explain the peculiar wording of 23:1, which is translated “former wife” in the new JPS Tanakh (1988), though it is not so qualified in the Hebrew text. Following the series of five laws on marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–29), the law forbidding a sexual relationship with one’s father’s wife (23:1) takes the reader back to the story of Reuben and his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22; 49:4), and the law of inheritance rights of the firstborn son (21:15–17), to form an inclusion with the beginning of the larger section of laws in 21:10–23:1. The association of the previous law with the story of Dinah, Jacob’s first and only daughter (Gen 34), is easy to understand, for Reuben is Jacob’s firstborn son. The first part of the law here, which prohibits a man from taking his father’s wife, includes the taking and possessing of his father’s concubine(s) in a formal legal relationship. The prohibition against removing his father’s garment in the second half of the verse resorts to figurative language. According to Carmichael, it focuses on Reuben’s intercourse with Bilhah. In his discussion of what he calls the law on “a forbidden relationship with a father’s wife,” Carmichael says: “In the law, a man’s wife is his skirt, and for a son to lie with her means that figuratively he has removed his father’s covering and put it on himself. In a literal sense he uncovers his stepmother’s nakedness, in a figurative sense, his father’s” (LNB, 222). Furthermore, he calls attention to the “double nature of this law.” The general prohibition of taking one’s father’s wife, presumably after his death, is followed by a specific condemnation of a son having intercourse with his father’s concubine while the father is still alive, as Reuben did with Bilhah (Gen 35:22).

Comment

wife of his father,” here must refer to a father’s former“ ,אשׁת אביו The phrase 1 wife or concubine; for one’s own mother see Lev 18:7–8 and27:20 below. interpreted this verse as prohibiting adultery with a man’s stepmother. It is more likely that the law “precludes a man from marrying a woman divorced by his father and inheriting or marrying his father’s wives and concubines after his death,” as Tigay has argued ([1996] 209). If the law were interpreted broadly so as to include concubines as well as wives, it would prohibit the action taken by Absalom (2 Sam 16:21–22). The phrase [’like “seeing [or ‘uncovering ,(יגלה סנף אביו) ”remove his father’s garment“ someone’s nakedness,” means having sexual relations with that person (Lev 18:7– 8; 20:11; see also Lev 18:10, 14, 16; 20:20, 21; Nah 3:5). “The point seems to be either that one sees nakedness that is reserved for his father or that the act is tantamount to having sexual relations with him” (Tigay [1996] 209). On the basis of Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8, Mayes interpreted the phrase “to cover with the skirt” as meaning “to marry”: “to uncover the skirt” would mean “to invade the privacy of the father’s marriage relationship” (Mayes [1981] 313).

Explanation The law in Deut 23:1 prohibits sexual relations with one’s father’s wife, as in the parallel passages of Lev 18:8 and 20:11 (see also Deut 27:20). It is clear that the text here refers to a woman who is not one’s own mother since a separate law in Lev 18:6– 7 deals with that situation. In ancient Israel, girls married at a young age, often in their early teens. In the case of a later wife (for whatever reason), it was sometimes the case that the woman would be the same age as, if not younger than, the man’s son by an earlier wife. Their presence together in the same house would sometimes create enticing situations, along the lines of what transpired between the slave Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39). Tigay ([1996]209) calls attention to Middle Assyrian Laws (Mal A, §46) allowing a man to marry his father’s former wife; and in pre-Islamic Arab culture an heir inherited a man’s wives and concubines along with the rest of his property (W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia [1903] 104–11). The specific wording of the law here shapes details in the story in the book of Genesis about Reuben, who had sexual relations with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (see Gen 35:22). In that instance we have a polygamous household in which Jacob’s wife Leah was Reuben’s mother (Gen 29:32). Bilhah was the slave of Jacob’s other wife, Rachel (Gen 30:2–5). Reuben was subsequently cursed by his father, Jacob, for his sexual relationship with Bilhah (Gen 49:4). Tsevat argues that the taking of a ruler’s wives or concubines was a way of asserting or strengthening the claim to royalty on the part of a would-be usurper to the throne (“Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3 [1958] 237–43). Thus Adonijah’s request for David’s concubine Abishag led to his execution by Solomon (1 Kgs 2:13–25). Earlier in the narrative story of David’s reign, Absalom publicly consorted with David’s concubines in his aborted coup d’état (2 Sam 16:21– 22). Such action violates the law that prohibits marriage to one’s father’s wife. The tenth commandment declares that a man is not to covet his neighbor’s wife (Deut 5:21). This applies even in specific situations where that “neighbor” is one’s own father, who may be the king—particularly in the question of succession to the throne.

D. Seven Laws on “True Religion” (23:1– 26 [Eng. 22:30–23:25])

1. Admission to the Assembly of YHWH (23:1– 9 [Eng. 22:30–23:8]) Bibliography

Bertholet, A. Die Stellung der Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden. Leipzig, 1896. 173. Blenkinsopp, J. “Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism.” JSOT 41 (1988) 83– 103. Brichto, H. C. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. 1963. 195–96. Carmichael, C. M. LNB. 228–31. ———. “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo.” VT 19 (1969) 287–88. ———. Women, Law and the Genesis Traditions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1979. Christensen, D. L.“A New Israel: The Righteous from among All Nations.” In FS R. K. Harrison. 1988. 251–59. Cohen, S. “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical Judaism.” ConsJud 36 (1982–83) 31–45. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 31. Eerdmans, B. D.Deuteronomy. 1927. 77–84. Falk, Z. W. “Those Excluded from the Congregation.” BMik 20 (1975) 342–51, 438 (Heb.). Feigin, S. “Etymological Notes.” AJSL 43 (1926/27) 53–60. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 1988. 114–43. ———. “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters.” JBL89 (1970) 313–18. Freund, J. “ ‘Do Not Abhor the Edomite, for He Is Your Brother’ (Deut 23, 8).” BMik 11 (1965–66) 117–21 (Heb.). Galling, K. “Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23.” In FS A. Bertholet. 1950. 176–91. Gevaryahu, H. “Thou Shalt Not Abhor an Egyptian.” DD 3 (1974) 6–9 (Heb.). Glueck, N. “Deut 23:8, 9.” In The Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volumes. Ed. M. Davis. 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1953. 2:261–62.Gordis, R. “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Israel.” In Poets, Prophets, and Sages. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1971. 45–60. Greenberg, M. “Mankind, Israel and the Nations in the Hebraic Heritage.” In No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind. Ed. J. R. Nelson. Leiden: Brill, 1971. 15–40, esp. 28–29. Hillers, D. R.“A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament.” BASOR 176 (1964) 46– 47. Hossfeld, F.-L. “Volk Gottes als ‘Versammlung’.” In Unterwegs zur Kirche— Alttestamentliche Konzeptionen. Ed. J. Schreiner. QD 110. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987. 123–42. Hulst, A. R. “Het Woord kahal in Deuteronomium.” NThS 22 (1939) 159–66. ——— . “Der Name ‘Israel’ im Deuteronomium.” OTS 9 (1951) 65–106. Kaufmann, Y. History of the Religion of Israel: From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy. Tr. C. W. Efroymson. New York: Ktav, 1977. 136–39, 331–49, 384–85. ———. The Religion of Israel. Tr. M. Greenberg. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960. 206, 300–301, 449, 451. Kellermann, U. “Erwägungen zum deuteronomischen GemeindegesetzDt 23, 2–9.” BN 2 (1977) 33–47. Klein, H. “Die Aufnahme Fremder in die Gemeinde des Alten und des Neuen Bundes.” Theologische Beiträge 12 (1981) 21–35.Kritzinger, J. D. W. Qehal Jahwe: Wat dit es en wie daaraan mag behoort. Kampen: Kok, 1957. McCarthy, D. J. “Ebla, ὅρμια τέμνειν, ṭb, šlm: Addenda toTreaty and Covenant2.” Bib 60 (1979) 247–53. Milgrom, J. “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel.” JBL 101 (1982) 169–76, esp. 173–74. ———. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLA 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. 1– 17. Moran, W. L. “A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire Stelas.” JNES 22 (1963) 173–76. Mowinckel, S. “Zu Dt 23, 2–9.” ActOr 1 (1923) 81–104. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. 1944. 224–27. ———.“The Prohibition against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws.” HUCA 26 (1955) 355–412. Ohana, M. “Prosélytisme et Targum palestinien: Données nouvelles pour la datation de Néofiti 1.” Bib 55 (1974) 317–32. Rouillard, H. La Péricope de Balaam (Nombers 22–24). Fondation Singer-Polignac. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1985. Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness That Was Babylon. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1988. 332. Stamm, J. J. “Hebräische Frauennamen.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 301–39. Sumner, W. A. “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og according to the Deuteronomist.” VT 18 (1968) 216–28. Tadmor, H. “Was the Biblical saris a Eunuch?” In FS J. Greenfield. 1995. 317–25. Tadmor, H., and Cogan, M. “ and Tiglath- Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations.” Bib 60 (1979) 491–508. Tigay, J. “Excursus 21: The Background and Development of the Regulations about Admission to the Assembly of the Lord.” In Deuteronomy. 1996. 477–80. Weinfeld, M. “Congregation.” EncJud 5:893–96. Welch, A. C.Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code. 1932. 200. Wiseman, D. J. “ ‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy.” VT 32 (1982) 311–26, esp. 313. Bibliography for 23:4–9

Bartlett, J. R. “The Brotherhood of Edom.” JSOT 4 (1977) 2–27. ———. “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom.” JTS 20 (1969) 1–20. ———. “The Moabites and Edomites.” In POTT. 229–58. Coats, G. W. “Balaam: Sinner or Saint?” BR 17 (1973) 1–9. Coogan, M. D. “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel.” In FS F. M. Cross. 1987. 115–24, esp. 116. Donner, H. “Balaam Pseudopropheta.” In FS W. Zimmerli. 1977. 112–23, esp. 121–23. Finkelstein, J. J. “Mesopotamia.” JNES 21 (1962) 73–92. Hackett, J. “Religious Tradition in Israelite Transjordan.” In FS F. M. Cross. 1987. 125–36, esp. 127. Luria, B. Z. “The Curse That Has Come upon Ammon and Moab.” BMik 27 (1981/82) 191–94 (Heb.). Milgrom, J. “Excursus 1: Some Political Institutions of Early Israel”; and “Excursus 60: Balaam and the Deir ‘Alla Inscription.” In Numbers. 1990. 335–36, 473–76. Müller, H.-P. “Die aramäischen Inschrift von Deir ʿAllā und die älteren Bileamsprüche.” ZAW 94 (1982) 214–44. ———. “Der neu gefundene Bileam-Text aus Deir ʿAllā.” ZDMG Sup 4 (1980) 129–33. O’Callaghan, R. T. Aram Naharaim. AnOr 26. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1948.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Restrictions on Entry into the Assembly of YHWH [6] [6]

23:1(22:30) A man shall not take \ his father’s wife // 14 1 2 12 ס // and he shall not remove / his father’s garment 2(1) No one with crushed testicles / or whose penis is cut off / 13 2 _1 13 ס // shall enter the assembly of YHWH 3(2) No one “misbegotten” shall enter / the assembly of YHWH // 14 2 even / to the tenth generation / 8 2 his descendants shall not enter / the assembly of 13 2_ ס // YHWH

Exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites [5:6] [8:8]

4(3) No Ammonite / or Moabite / shall enter the assembly of 24 3 YHWH // even / to the tenth generation / 8 2_ None of them shall enter / the assembly of YHWH \ forever // 19 2 5(4) because / they did not meet you \ with bread and water / 21 2 on the road / when you came out from Egypt // 13 2_ And because he hired against you / 11 1 Balaam son of Beor / from Pethor / 12 2 of Aram-naharaim / to curse you // 11 2 6(5) and YHWH your God / did not consent / to hear Balaam / 24 3_ And YHWH your God turned for you / the curse / into a 28 3 blessing // for YHWH your God / loved you // 16 2 7(6) You shall not seek their peace \ and their good // 17 1 _2 10 ס // all your days / forever

Inclusion of the Edomites and the Egyptians [6:5]

3 19 ס // You shall not abhor an Edomite / for he is / your brother (7)8 you shall not abhor an Egyptian / for you were / 13 2 a sojourner in his land // 9 1_ 9(8) Children / born to them / of the third generation // 22 3 _2 12 ס // may enter / the assembly of YHWH

Notes

1.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because when 23:1 is read with the following verse as a prosodic unit, the ʾatnāḥ is displaced. 2.a. Many Heb. MSS and printed editions, Cairo Geniza fragments, and SP ,crushed.” The two verbal roots have the same meaning“ ,דכא for MT דכה read .is found in Scripture only in the book of Psalms דכה though 3.a-a. Omitted in LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 4.a. Omitted in LXX.

4.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. 5.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 5.b. LXX and Vg. read pl. Prosodic analysis favors MT.

”.Pethor“ ,פתור for MT פתרה c. SP reads.5

7.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 8.a. A number of Heb. MSS, SP, and Syr. add waw-conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The second major section of laws in the sixth of the eleven weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings fromDeuteronomy (21:10–25:19) moves from the prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife (23:1) to the prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried in the interim (24:1–4), which is followed by the law on deferral of a new husband from military service (24:5). a man shall not take“ ,לא־יקח אישׁ את־אשׁת אביו ,The opening words of 23:1 כי־יקח אישׁ ,his father’s wife,” form an inclusion with the opening words of22:13 when a man takes a wife,” on accusations of premarital unchastity, which in“ ,אשׁה turn are identical with the opening words of24:1 and 24:5. The arrangement of the laws from 22:13–23:1 may be outlined as follows:

( כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה) A False accusation of premarital unchastity 22:13–19 B Premarital unchastity—woman dies 22:20–21 X Adultery with married woman or betrothed virgin—both die 22:22–24 B′ Rape of betrothed or unbetrothed virgin man dies or is fined 22:25–29 ( לא־יקח אישׁ את־אשׁת אביו) A′ Marrying a father’s wife prohibited 23:1 The focus of attention in this structure is on the seventh commandment, which prohibits adultery, where both parties face the death penalty (22:22–24). The inner frame moves from the mortal sin of a woman in sexual matters (premarital unchastity, 22:20–21) to that of a man (rape of a betrothed virgin,22:25–29). The outer frame moves from a specific action on the part of a man who falsely accuses his wife of premarital unchastity (22:13–19) to a general prohibition against a man marrying his father’s wife (23:1). Both of these laws are introduced by the words “when a man takes a woman” (22:13; 23:1). In addition to its role in the above structure, 23:1 also functions as the introduction to another literary unit that may be outlined as follows:

(in 23:1 לא־יקח אישׁ את־אשׁת אביו) A Laws on marriage and war 23:1–15 B The law of asylum for the fugitive slave 23:16–17 X The law prohibiting “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 B′ Laws on the protection of the poor and vulnerable 23:20–26 (in 24:1 and 5 כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה) A′ Laws on marriage and war 24:1–5 The center in this structure associates the seventh commandment, the prohibition of adultery, with the worship of YHWH (commandments 1–3) in what I call here “holy prostitution,” and thus forms an inclusion of sorts with the whole of the collection of laws in 12:1–14:21 (“Right Worship—Relationship to God”) as well. The outer frame moves from laws that link war and marriage (23:1–15) to another shorter series on the same topic (24:1–4). As was the case for the laws in 22:13–23:1, both of these sections are introduced by the words “when a man takes a woman” (23:1; 25:1) with repetition of the same words in 25:4. The theme of marriage in both instances is expanded into that of war, moving from the law on the sanctification of the military camp (23:10–15) to the deferral of a new husband from military service (24:5). The inner frame picks up another central theme, which is expanded in depth in the thirteen laws in 24:5–25:19 on the protection of the poor and vulnerable in the society of ancient Israel (23:16– 17; 23:20–26). Having raised the issue of the relationship between the prohibition of adultery and the worship of YHWH within the larger structural design of 23:2–24:4 as a whole, the author’s attention focuses first on the assembly of YHWH and the question of membership. The regulations in vv 2–9 bar specific types or groups of people from entering the assembly of YHWH: certain individuals, on the basis of physical impairment of the means of procreation or the questionable nature of their birth in relation to the matter of “holy prostitution” (vv 2–3); and certain aliens—Ammonites and Moabites (vv 4–7), and, at least temporarily, Edomites and Egyptians (vv 8–9). From a prosodic perspective, 23:1 functions as a rhythmic bridge. When read as a 2:2 unit by itself (in terms of syntactic accentual stress units), it concludes the previous section of laws pertaining to marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–23:1). But when read with what follows, it becomes an integral part of a transitional 6:6 rhythmic unit, which introduces a section of laws on social ethics (23:1–24:5). Within this context, it is closely tied to vv 18–19 (the prohibition of “holy prostitution”) and to 24:1–5, which begins and ends with repetition of the opening words of 22:13 (which are modified slightly at the beginning of 23:1): “when a man takes a woman.” The place of the laws on admission to the assembly of YHWH in 23:2–9 within the larger structure of 23:2–26 may be outlined as follows: A The assembly of YHWH 23:2–9 B Sanctity of the military camp 23:10–15 X Protection of poor and vulnerable: asylum for escaped slaves 23:16–17 B′ Prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 A′ Three laws on protection of the poor and vulnerable 23:20–26 If there is substance in this structural outline, the outer frame suggests that the assembly of YHWH (23:2–9) includes the poor and the vulnerable as a primary category. The center of this structure defines the assembly of YHWH in relation to escaped slaves who find asylum in the promised land (23:16–17). The inner frame explores another dimension of the assembly of YHWH in the image of the military camp (23:10–15), the sanctity of which is in some way related to the law prohibiting “holy prostitution.” This larger structural design provides the basis for a fresh look at the laws on “misbegotten folk” who are excluded from the assembly of YHWH in 23:2–3. Though the MT of 23:1–9 contains six sĕtûmāʾ layout markers (after vv 1, 2, 3, 7, 8a, and 9), the passage is in five parts in terms of its prosodic structure, which may be outlined as follows: A No one who abuses procreative powers is allowed in the assembly 23:1–2 B No one “misbegotten” in the assembly—to the tenth generation 23:3a X Their descendants are excluded from the assembly of YHWH 23:3b B′ No Ammonite or Moabite in the assembly—to the tenth generation 23:4–7 A′ Edomites and Egyptians may enter the assembly in the third generation 23:8–9 The break between vv 5a and 5b is marked with the Numeruswechsel (change from second sg. to second pl. forms and back again to second sg.). The central aspect of YHWH’s promised blessing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is that of fertility. Consequently those who abuse their procreative powers, or who are unable to participate in the blessing itself, are barred from membership in the assembly of YHWH. In particular this means Ammonites and Moabites, who are presented in Genesis as the incestuous offspring of Abraham’s nephew Lot. In spite of immediate hostility on the part of Edom and Egypt in the generation of the exodus from Egypt, these nations are presented as “brothers” (Esau/Edom) and friends. As such they are welcome in the assembly of YHWH. After the opening verse (23:1), which also functions as the conclusion to the previous section of laws on marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–23:1), the transitional list of restrictions on entry into the assembly of YHWH and the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites in vv 2–4 are marked with a fourfold repetition of the words at the beginning of each line in the Hebrew text, in the (לא־יבא) ”he shall not enter“ familiar pattern of three plus one in Jungian psychology: eunuchs, “misbegotten ones” and the “children of Lot,” followed by a general reference: “none of them shall ,(ממזר) enter the assembly of YHWH forever” (v 4c). Another way of looking at the structure of this section is to examine in detail the exclusion of the “sons of Lot” and the inclusion of the “sons of Esau” (Edomites) and Egyptians in vv 4–9, which may be outlined as follows: A No Ammonite or Moabite in the assembly to the tenth generation 23:4 B They opposed you when you came up out of Egypt—hiring Balaam 23:5 X YHWH turned the curse to a blessing—do not seek their peace 23:6–7 B′ Edom is your brother and you were a sojourner in Egypt 23:8 A′ No Edomite or Egyptian in the assembly—to the third generation 23:9 The focus of attention in this reading shifts from that of the exclusion of the descendants of the “misbegotten folk” from the assembly of YHWH (vv 1–9) to the fact that YHWH has turned Balaam’s curse into a blessing (vv 6–7). One wonders if this is not a subtle anticipation of a future change, as God once again turns a curse into a blessing—when the “sons of Lot” are included in the assembly of YHWH in the book of Ruth. Carmichael has shown that there is a specific link between the laws of Deuteronomy and the narrative in Genesis (esp. in LNB). Since Deuteronomy is essentially the farewell address of Moses to the assembly of the children of Israel, it is not surprising to find a link between it and Jacob’s (Israel’s) parting words to his twelve sons in Gen 49. There is also a link between Jacob’s poetic words of blessing and the narrative stories that precede it in Genesis. What is important to note here, as we move from the sex laws of 22:13–23:1 to the laws in 23:2–9 about who is to be admitted into and who is to be excluded from the assembly of YHWH, is Israel’s place among the nations. In the narratives of Genesis, the change of Jacob’s name to that of Israel is recorded twice within a concentric structural design:

A Story of Jacob’s family begins: Jacob returns from Aram 32:1–3 B Jacob sends presents to appease Esau (Edom) 32:4–22 C Jacob and a “man” at the Jabbok—name changed to Israel 32:23–33 D Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom are reconciled 33:1–17 X Jacob/Israel erects an altar at Shechem 33:18–20 D′ Jacob/Israel and the Hivites are alienated: rape of Dinah 34:1–24 C′ Jacob and an “angel” at Bethel—name changed to Israel 35:1–15 B′ The descendants of Esau (Edom): genealogical lists 36:1–43 A′ Story of Jacob’s family resumes: Joseph sold into Egypt 37:1–36 As shown in the discussion below, the narrative structure outlined here is an expansion of the laws in Deut 23:1–24:4. It is also the same as the overall structure of the story of Abram/Abraham in Gen 12: A Abram leaves Mesopotamia for the land of Canaan 12:1–4 B Abram arrives in the land of Canaan with his household 12:5 X Abram erects an altar to YHWH at Shechem 12:6–8 B′ Abram journeys from the Negev to Egypt in time of famine 12:9–16 A′ Abram leaves Egypt after YHWH afflicts Egypt with plagues 12:17–20 The story moves from Mesopotamia (32:1–3) to Egypt (Gen 37), with the erection of an altar for the worship of YHWH at Shechem in the land of Canaan at its center. This altar is “the place that YHWH has chosen to make his name dwell there”—the site of the central sanctuary in Deuteronomy (see Deut 26–27). In the inmost frame we find Israel and Edom reconciled (Gen 33:1–17), and Israel and the Hivites in the land of Canaan alienated (Gen 34). The next frame contains the parallel accounts of the change of Jacob’s name to that of Israel (32:23–33 and chap. 35). The next frame focuses on Edom, Israel’s “twin brother” (32:4–22 and chap. 36). The outer frame moves from Laban’s departure from his son-in-law Jacob in the land of Aram (32:1–3) to Joseph’s arrival in Egypt as a slave in the house of Potiphar (chap. 37). The second account of the change in Jacob’s name to Israel includes the repetition of the blessing originally given to Abraham (Gen 15 and 17), in which he is told to “be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you” (35:11). This statement and the narratives that follow in Genesis on the matter of maintaining the family line are an expansion of the law that “no one with crushed testicles or whose penis is cut off shall enter the assembly of YHWH” (Deut 23:2). The concern of the law is that of procreation so as to “be fruitful and multiply” as God commanded. Carmichael argues that “Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn, the one through whom the line of descendants should have proved most prominent. He was the first fruit of his father’s virility (Gen 49:3)” (LNB, 226). But Reuben misused his sexual potency in lying with his father’s concubine Bilhah; in so doing he took “his father’s wife” and he “remove(d) his father’s garment” (Deut 23:1). This is why Moses had so little to say about Reuben in his own blessing in 33:6. The law on the exclusion of eunuchs from YHWH’s assembly in 23:2 carries the matter a significant step further. The man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off cannot produce offspring and thus is unable to participate in YHWH’s blessing upon the line of Jacob/Israel. Jacob’s pronouncement on Reuben is followed immediately by harsh words concerning his brothers Simeon and Levi and their actions recorded in Gen 34, where the Hivites attempted to associate with Jacob and his sons by means of marriage and commercial transactions. Simeon and Levi were opposed to this idea of “mixed seed,” so they tricked the Hivites into becoming circumcised and then killed all the males. The Hivite wives and children, however, were absorbed into the family line of Jacob/Israel. Circumcision ordinarily indicates inclusion in the community of Israel; “but in this instance it was used to facilitate forcible exclusion from it” (Carmichael, LNB, 227). The primary reason for excluding “eunuchs” from the assembly of YHWH is that such people cannot participate in God’s blessing of fertility bestowed on Abraham (Gen 15, 17, 22), Isaac (Gen 26), and Jacob/Israel (Gen 35). The capacity to reproduce, however, is not sufficient reason to be included in the assembly of YHWH. The manner of conception renders some unacceptable; this is what may ממזר in 23:3. Though the term (ממזר) ”is meant by the law of the “misbegotten refer to the offspring of those who are dedicated to the service of another deity such as the prophet Balaam of vv 5–6, it is more interesting to observe how the law was expanded in the narrative tradition of Genesis as the basis for understanding the subsequent exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites. If the law of Deut 23:1 was interpreted by Genesis as condemning Reuben for “removing his father’s garment,” that is, lying with his father’s wife, so it implicitly condemned Lot’s daughters for “uncovering their father’s nakedness” in Gen 19:30– 38 so as to “preserve offspring through [their] father” (19:34). The result of this incestuous union was the birth of Moab and his brother Ben-ammi, the father of the Ammonites (19:37–38). “It is also noteworthy that just as Simeon and Levi caused the Hivites to be off their guard by encouraging them to undergo circumcision, so Lot’s daughters achieved a similar result by getting him drunk. In each instance, someone resorts to a ruse, and each time the ruse’s focus is genital” (Carmichael, LNB, 229). The law here that excludes the “misbegotten” products of an incestuous union indicates “that some increases are incompatible with the legal and moral conditions under which this blessing operates” (LNB, 230). Two specific historical arguments are added to underscore the decision to exclude future generations of Ammonites and Moabites. They did not come through with provisions of bread and water when Israel traveled from Egypt, and they hired Balaam to curse Israel. The law excluding Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly of YHWH in 23:4– 5 may be related to the narrative in 1 Kings on David and his grandson Rehoboam, as Milgrom has suggested (JBL 101 [1982] 173–74). He sees the law as a polemic against these two Judean monarchs who were born, respectively, of Moabite (Ruth 4:18–22) and Ammonite (1 Kgs 14:31) ancestry. From the perspective of a writer in the Northern Kingdom of Israel this lineage demonstrates the illegitimacy of Judah, whose founding and should have been excluded from the (ממזר) ”kings are thus both “misbegotten assembly of YHWH’s people. The law that admits Edomites and Egyptians to the assembly of YHWH “in their third generation” (Deut 23:8–9) leads us back to the narrative structure of Gen 32–37. The Edomites are to be included because Edom “is your brother” (v 8). The narrative structure in Genesis spells out in detail what this means when Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom are reconciled (Gen 32–33) and Edom participates in the blessing of YHWH, as the genealogies of Esau in Gen 36 demonstrate. Jacob/Israel was well received by his brother Esau, in spite of the fact that Jacob had cheated him out of his birthright. Contrary to Jacob’s fears as he crossed the Jabbok on his return to the land of Canaan, Esau proved to be friendly and helpful. “He even suggested that some of his people might join Jacob’s to help out (Gen 33:15). In other words, the narrative itself mentions the incorporation of the Edomites into Jacob’s assembly” (Carmichael, LNB, 233). The Egyptians are to be included because “you were a sojourner in his land” (v 8); thus the narrative story of Jacob’s family continues in Gen 37 by quickly moving Joseph from the land of Canaan to the household of Potiphar in the land of Egypt. After an interlude with the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38), the story resumes with Jacob’s entire family moving to Egypt (45:16–20) and prospering. The evidence from Labuschagne’s study on the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 in 23:1–26 may be summarized as follows: Words before ʾatnā after ʾatnā : ḥ ḥ

(= 3 11 23:1–9 66 + 51 × = 7 17 ) 23:10– (= 17 + 43 + 37 = 80 15 26) 23:16– 15 + 7 = 22 17 (= 3 23:18– (= 17 + 43 + 51 × = 94 24 26) 17 ) 23:18– 11 (= 7 × 58 + 61 = 26 9 17)

(= 6 23:1– 15 33 (= 13 × 182 (= 7 × 26) + × = 26 6 8 26) 26 ) (= 2 23:11– 38 + 34 × = 72 15 17 ) 23:14– (= 2 × 18 + 16 = 34 15 17)

כבוד =) –23:16 20 + 12 = 32 18 , “glory”) 23:19 11 + 6 = 17

23:22 8 + 9 = 17

The prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife in 23:1, which is structurally part of the previous section as well, and the seven laws on true religion in23:2–26 are carefully constructed on the basis of the divine-name numbers. In the opening section (vv 1–9), which deals with those who are restricted from admission to the assembly of YHWH, there are 51 (= 3 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ. The law on the sanctity of the military camp (vv 10–15) has 43 (= 17 + 26) words before ʾatnāḥ. Though the law on asylum for fugitive slaves (vv 16–17) shows no evidence of the divine-name numbers, the next three laws fall together in vv 18–24 with 43 (= 17 + 26) words before ʾatnāḥ and 51 (= 3 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ. When these three verses are joined with the law on the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crop (vv 25–26), the total number of words in vv 18–26 comes to 119 (= 7 × 17). Moreover, we find a grand total of 338 (= 13 × 26) words in the chapter as a whole (23:1–26), with 182 (= 7 × 26) words before ʾatnāḥ and 156 (= 6 × 26) words afterʾatnāḥ. In short, the mathematical composition of this passage presents further evidence of the incredible labor of love on the part of ancient scribes (“counters”) in Israel who produced a carefully constructed literary work of art in which God’s name is woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text.

Comment 1 See previous section, “Prohibition of Marrying One’s Father’s Wife (23:1 [Eng 22:30]).” (פצוע־דכא) ”Two types of emasculation are presented here: “crushed testicles 2 Either condition excludes the .(וכרות שׁפכה) ”and those “whose penis is cut off Though Tigay .(קהל יהוה) ”person from membership in “the assembly of YHWH maintains that “it is not known which part of the genitals the noun shofkha, from a root meaning ‘pour,’ refers to” ([1996] 386 n. 23), it would appear that it is the male organ, the penis. The prohibition was probably not aimed at those emasculated by accident or illness, as Craigie has noted ([1976] 296–97), for Isa 56:3–5 makes reference to eunuchs as among YHWH’s people. On eunuchs see H. Tadmor, “Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh in 2 Kings 18,” in FS D. N. Freedman [1983] 279–85; idem, “Was the Biblical saris a Eunuch?” On ritual self-castration, see Lucian of Samosata, The Syrian Goddess (De dea Syria), tr. H. W. Attridge and R. Oden, Texts and Translations 9 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976) 55, §51. translated here as “misbegotten” with JPS Tanakh, appears to ,ממזר The term 3 be bad” (of eggs), or “be foul” (corrupt, rotten). The term“ ,מזר derive from the root appears only twice in the OT, here and in Zech 9:6. Craigie suggested that the term refers to children born to cult prostitutes (see vv18–19 below), and supports his case ,dedicate“ ,נזר with the following etymology: mamzēr < manzēr (hiph. ptcp. of would thus be a child ‘dedicated’ to a foreign god, by reason ממזר consecrate”). “The of its conception during some kind of temple fertility ritual” ([1976] 297 n. 8). The larger literary structure of the laws in 23:1–24:4, as discussed in the introduction to this section of the commentary, lends some support to Craigie’s interpretation; for the text here is to be read in relation to the law on “holy prostitution” in 23:18–19. The reference to “the tenth generation” here probably means “forever,” as it does in v 4. That the story of Ruth challenges the permanent exclusion of Moabites suggests that liberalization is in order on this point as well, and seems to reflect the outlook of the author of Isa 56:3–5, at least in regard to eunuchs and the community of faith. 4–7 “Ammonite(s)” and “Moabite(s)” are permanently excluded from the “assembly of YHWH—even to the tenth generation,” which is explained in poetic parallelism to mean “forever.” As Keil and Delitzsch put it, the ten here “is the number of complete exclusion” (Pentateuch [1956]. 414). The reason for their exclusion is based on specific historical experiences: “they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out from Egypt.” Moreover, the king of Moab hired “Balaam son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim to curse you” (see Num 22–24). On the specific territory covered by the term “Aram-naharaim” in northern Mesopotamia, see W. Pitard in ABD 1:341. In light of this past experience the people of Israel are told not to establish a friendly relationship with these peoples: “you shall not seek their peace in the sense of seeking a political alliance. Craigie ”,[טובה] and their good [שׁלום] ([1976] 298) argued that seeking “peace, friendship” reflects the terminology of Near Eastern political treaties (cf. Moran,JNES 22 [1963] 173–76; and Hillers, BASOR 176 [1964] 46–47). King David eventually subdued them and incorporated the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites into his empire (2 Sam 8:2–12). 8–9 The “Edomite(s)” and the “Egyptian(s)” are treated here with much greater leniency in a temporary exclusion from entering “the assembly of YHWH”—“children born to them of the third generation” qualify for inclusion. The designation of Edom as ,(stems from the story of Esau, twin brother of Jacob (Israel (אחיך) ”your brother“ to be precisely the opposite of (תתעב) ”in Gen 36. Glueck considered the verb “abhor Mordecai Kaplan Jubilee Volume, 261–62). In spite of their ; חסד) ”lovingkindness“ experience as slaves in Egypt, the people of Israel are reminded that “you were a in his land.” The reference to “the third generation” is counting from the [גר] sojourner first generation that arrived in the land of Israel, much the same as the term “third- generation American” is used today, that is, the grandchildren of the original immigrant.

Explanation The reasoning behind the laws restricting entry into the assembly of YHWH in 23:2–9 suggests the principle that only those who are perfect physically and not the product of some unnatural union should be members of the covenant community in ancient Israel. The situation is somewhat similar to a superficial reading of the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). The holiness of God demands perfection in those who would approach his presence. In the gospel of the NT, this perfection is found in Christ, who provides the means of access to God for all people, regardless of their imperfections, whether moral, physical, or spiritual. The follower of Jesus stands in God’s presence as perfect—clothed in the perfection of Jesus himself. Though the people of Israel believed that God was not pleased or honored with bodily mutilation of any kind, they did come to realize that God’s mercy extends even to eunuchs who faithfully keep his commandments (Isa 56:4–5; cf. also the story of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch under the ministry of Philip in Acts 8:27–39). Tigay sees the “assembly” mentioned here as “the national governing body of the Israelites, that is, the entire people, or all the adult males, meeting in plenary session, and perhaps sometimes to their representatives acting as an executive committee. This Assembly convenes to conduct public business such as war, crowning a king, adjudicating legal cases, distributing land, and worship. It is synonomous with ˓edah, ‘community,’ which likewise refers to the entire nation, to the adult males (especially those bearing arms), and perhaps to the tribal leaders acting as an executive on behalf of the nation” ([1996] 210). He compares the assembly with similar popular assemblies in the ancient world, such as the ekklesia in Athens and the puḫrum in the cities of Mesopotamia. The point here in vv 2–9 is that certain types of people, within the national entity itself (vv 2–3) and among neighboring peoples (vv 4–9), are not permitted to become members of this governing assembly. It should be noted that Deuteronomy presents a more complicated picture than what Tigay has described in terms of the city-state models found in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia. There were two types of “assemblies” in premonarchic Israel: that of the central sanctuary at the pilgrimage festivals and in times of national crisis, and local assemblies within the structure of the Levitical cities (particularly the six cities of probably includes both levels in this (קהל יהוה) refuge). The assembly of YHWH religio-political structure. The point of the law here seems to be that certain individuals and groups of people are excluded from “citizenship” within these gatherings that took sacred assemblies,” some of which were held“ ,עצרת place every seven weeks in the locally and others at “the place God chooses to cause his name to dwell,” that is, at the central sanctuary. Whatever the assembly was in the society of ancient Israel, the people of YHWH as envisioned in the Latter Prophets, the Writings of the Hebrew Bible, and in the NT of the Christian Bible took on a different character. See D. Christensen, “Nations,” ABD 4:1037–49; idem, FS R. K. Harrison, 251–59.

2. Sanctity of the Military Camp (23:10– 15 [Eng. 9–14]) Bibliography

Tigay, J. “Excursus 3: The Concept of War in Deuteronomy” In Deuteronomy. 1996. 430. Vaux, R. de. “Une hachette essénienne?” VT 9 (1959) 399–407. Yadin, Y. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Tr. B. Rabin and C. Rabin. London: Oxford UP, 1962. 73 n. 3. See also Bibliography for 20:1–20.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis The Sanctity of the Military Camp [(4:8):(5:4):(4:5):(8:4)] 10(9) When you go forth as an army camp \ against your enemies // 16 1 then you must be on guard / against any / evil thing // 14 3_ 11(10) When there is among you \ a man / 8 1 who / is not clean / because of an event in the night // 18 3 Then he shall go outside / the camp / 13 2 he shall not come into the midst / of the camp // 14 2_ 12(11)a And it shall be toward evening / he is to bathe in water // 16 2 and at sundown / he may come / into [the midst of] the 17 3 camp // 13(12) and you shall have / a latrine / outside / the camp // 14 4_ And you shall go to that place / outside // 12 2 14(13) and you shall have / a trowel \ among your implements // 15 2 So that / when you squat outside / you may dig a hole with it / 19 3 and you shall turn / and you shall cover your excrement // 15 2_ 15(14) For YHWH your God / walks about / in the midst of your 22 3 camp / to deliver you / 6 1 And to hand over your enemies / before you / 17 2 so your camp must be / holy // 13 2_ And let him not find among you / a naked thing / 12 2 _2 10 ס // that he should turn away / from you

Notes

10.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 11.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 11.b. Some Heb. MSS, LXX-N, Syr., and Vg. add waw-conj.

כי אם midst,” with one Heb. MS, SP, and Vg. SP reads“ ,תוך a-a. Deleting.12 for if he washes his“ ,רחץ בשׂרו במים ובא השׁמשׁ ואחרי כן יבוא אל המחנה flesh in water and the sun sets, then afterward he may enter the camp.” The omission of this one word achieves perfect word counts—before ʾatnāḥ, after ʾatnāḥ, and in the grand total for 23:1–26 as a whole. All are divisible by the divine-name number 26. 12.b. Omitted in one Heb. MS, SP, and Vg. Prosodic analysis favors MT. 13.a. LXX reads καὶ τόπος, “and (there shall be) a place,” which may be an hand,” here. On the use of the“ ,יד interpretation of the unusual use of the word ”,a phallus you behold“ ,יד חזית) as a euphemism for phallus, see Isa 57:8 יד word with the יד according to a number of commentators; see BDB, 390). The use of meaning of “side” (= “place”) appears also in Num 2:17 and Jer 6:3. The “place” here is taken as a euphemism for “latrine.”

”.outside“ ,חוּץ for MT החוצה b. SP reads.13

14.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. .your [sg.] implement(s),” as collective. A number of Heb“ ,אזנך b. Reading.14 your implements”; LXX reads ἐπὶ τῆς“ ,אזניך MSS and Cairo Geniza fragments read .( אזרך =) ζώνης σου, “your girdle,” or warrior’s waistcloth .outside.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,חוּץ for MT החוצה c. SP reads.14

”,your camps“ ,מחניך a. Many Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and SP read.15 .your camp”; Tg. Ps.-J. has 2 pl“ ,מחנך for MT

”.your enemies“ ,איביך your enemy,” for MT“ ,איבך .b. LXX reads sg.15

.your camps,” with many Heb“ ,מהניך your camp,” for MT“ ,מהנך c. Reading.15 MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. Prosodic analysis favors the emendation, which improves the balance in terms of mora count.

Form/Structure/Setting The concept of the assembly of YHWH in ancient Israel as a military camp in which “YHWH your God walks about in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to hand over your enemies before you” (v 15) points to what I have earlier described as “Holy War as Celebrated Event” (see Excursusx:“Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel”). Impurity is incompatible with the presence of God and must be removed: “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my that is in their midst” (Lev 15:31; see J. Milgrom, “Excursus 49: The Effect of the Sinner upon the Sanctuary,” in Numbers, JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990] 444–47). A man who experienced a nocturnal emission within the military camp was considered unclean and was ordered to leave the camp in order to purify himself before reentering the camp at sundown (vv 11–12). Though the routine act of defecation is not described as something that makes a person ritually unclean in the same manner as a nocturnal emission of semen, specific instructions are given to make sure that excrement is properly disposed of outside the boundaries of the camp. army camp,” which“ ,מחנה The two key words in this passage are the noun to go forth,” which appears four“ ,יצא appears seven times in six verses, and the verb times, in the following sequences:

(twice) מחנך → למחנה → (twice) המחנה → למהנה → מחנה צאתך → ויצאת → ויצא → תצא

against “your (תצא) ”that “goes forth (מחנה) ”In the first instance, it is “an army enemies” (v 10). The second occurrence presents a specific case when an individual soldier is required to leave the camp because of a certain “event in the night” (v 11). Having stated the matter in the third person for this particular case, the focus shifts to a general command in the second person: a latrine is to be located outside the camp v 13) and there you must cover up ,ויצאת) ”to which “you must go (מחוץ למחנה) your excrement” (v 14). YHWH himself “walks“ ,(צאתך) ”what “goes forth from you v 15), as he did in the garden ,מתהלך בקרב מחנך) ”about in the midst of your camp ,as used of both Enoch and Noah in Gen 5:22, 24 התהלך of Eden (cf. Gen 3:8; cf. also must be kept holy (מחנך) ”and 6:9, where it denotes intimacy). Therefore “your camp (v 15). Otherwise YHWH might soil himself by stepping in your mess as he walks with you in the battle camp. Those who object to such an anthropomorphic portrayal of God need to recognize that the language here is poetic and symbolic, even metaphorical in nature—much like the language of Gen 1–11. R. Norman Whybray (Introduction to the Pentateuch [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995] 33–34) saw the same phenomenon in his reading of Gen 1– 11 when he wrote: One may say that the author [of Gen 1–11] presents the reader with a rather unexpected portrait of God. Despite the assurance at the beginning (1:31) that when God surveyed his creative actions he concluded that the result was wholly good, God appears quite soon to be somewhat nervous about what he has done and, in particular, concerned about his own supremacy over his creatures. He sets conditions to mankind’s freedom (2:17) and threatens immediate death as a consequence of disobedience, a threat that the snake—quite correctly, as it turns out—flatly rejects, calling God a liar. When the act of disobedience has been committed, God betrays nervousness about the possibility that mankind may now go further and seize the immortality which properly belongs only to God (3:22). The same anxiety betrays itself in the final episode of these chapters (11:6), when God fears that mankind may succeed in wresting unlimited (i.e., divine) power for themselves. In both cases God takes steps to forestall such ambitions. Meanwhile the mysterious incident of the union of the “sons of God” with the daughters of men (6:1–2) also seems to have been regarded by God as containing a threat of immortality human or semi-divine (compare 3:22), which needed to be suppressed. This startling portrayal of the character of God appears to be shaped, at least in part, by the poetic language of the law on sanctity of the military camp inDeut 23:15 (Eng. 23:14). The boundaries of the law on the sanctity of the military camp in 23:10–15 are marked with the sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 9 and 15. The words translated “evil v 15b) function as an inclusion ,ערות דבר) ”v 10) and “naked thing ,דבר רע) ”thing within which further repetition of words and phrases appear in a nested concentric structure: ונשׁמרת מכל דבר A “Be on guard against any evil thing” 23:10 רע

23:11 ויצא ”B “He shall go forth

C “outside the camp” אל־מחוץ למחנה “He shall not reenter the D לא יבא אל־תוך ”camp המחנה “He shall bathe in X 23:12 ירחץ במים ”… water “He shall reenter the D′ יבא אל־תוך המחנה ”camp 23:13a … לך מחוץ למחנה ”C′ “for you outside the camp 23:13b– B′ “He shall go forth outside” 14 ויצאת שׁמה חוץ ולא־יראה בך ערות A′ “Let him not find … a naked thing” 23:15 דבר

Taking v 12 as the center, one may outline the content of the law in 23:10–15 in a concentric structural design:

( דבר רע) A When in the camp, be on guard against any evil thing 23:10 B When an event in the night occurs, a man must leave the camp 23:11 X After purification, he may reenter the camp at sundown 23:12 B′ You shall defecate outside the camp and cover your excrement 23:13–14 ( ערות דבר) A′ YHWH is in the camp; let him not find a naked thing 23:15 The focus of attention in this structure is on the sanctity of the military camp and the ritual purification required of those who are temporarily unclean (v12). The outer frame moves from an injunction to be on guard against any “evil thing” that may lead to defilement (v 10), for YHWH himself walks in your midst as the camp goes forth against your enemies to deliver you: “your camp must be holy; and let him not find among you a naked thing that he should turn away from you” (v 15). The inner frame moves from a somewhat enigmatic reference to some “event in the night” that makes a person unclean (v 11), to specific instructions regarding defecating outside the camp is (ערות דבר) ”and covering one’s excrement (vv 13–14). The “naked thing something exposed for all to see that ought not to be exposed, such as excrement that one might inadvertently step in. The previous law about the inclusion of Edomites and Egyptians in the assembly of YHWH suggests the possibility that people may be excluded from the community for a while and then be readmitted to the “camp.” This idea is taken up in the law of the army camp, for a man may be excluded temporarily because of impurity. The law on cleanliness in the army camp (23:10–15) is expanded in story form in Gen 32 (see Carmichael, LNB, 234–37). The passage begins with a note in Gen 32:2– at a place (מלאכי אלהים) Eng. 1–2) in which Jacob encounters angels of God) 3 two army camps”). When Jacob saw the angels of God“ ,מחנים) called Mahanaim he said, “This is God’s army!” (Gen 32:2–3). In the fascinating story ,(מלאכי אלהים) of what took place later “that same night” (32:23), Jacob wrestled with a man who “touched the hollow of his thigh” (32:24) and crippled him in a manner that disqualified him temporarily for inclusion “within the camp.” In the law of Deut 23:10–15, the warrior who is made unclean by virtue of a nocturnal emission must leave the camp and remain outside until evening, and then return only after performing the appropriate ablutions. Jacob’s experience is different, as Carmichael has noted (LNB, 237): “he remains in camp and receives a divine blessing, followed next morning by success in the face of Esau’s expected enmity.” According to the law, the army camp is sacred space, “for YHWH your God walks about in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to hand over your enemies before you” (v 15). The implications are clear: the assembly of YHWH is to be understood in the imagery of a military camp and YHWH himself is the Divine Warrior, “so your camp must be holy” (v 15).

Comment

see Gen 32:2. The reference to “when מחנה On the translation “army camp” for 10 you go forth as an army camp against your enemies” probably refers to more than normal military situations, however, for the people of Israel envisioned themselves as the “hosts of YHWH” with God himself as a Divine Warrior. In the context of the pilgrimage festivals, particularly in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover as observed at Gilgal near Jericho (see Josh 1–6), the people pitched camp in “battle array” with the in the tabernacle in the midst of the camp. This tradition was still alive in the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (see Yadin, 73 n. 3, regarding the Scroll of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness). In the camp See Deut 17:1, where the .(כל דבר רע) ”you must be on guard against any evil thing“ refers to bodily defects in sacrificial animals that disqualify their כל דבר רע phrase .of v 15 (ערות דבר) ”use. Here it forms an inclusion with the phrase “a naked thing is defined concretely in the parallel text (מקרה־לילה) ”The “event in the night 11 in Lev 15:16: “And if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening.” The elusive terminology here lends itself well to the symbolic reading of the text proposed by Carmichael in relation to Jacob’s unusual “events in the night” with mysterious visitors sent from God at Bethel (Gen 28) and at the Jabbok (Gen 32). 12–14 The phrase “toward evening” refers to the Hebrew concept of the beginning see Note13.a above. Though (יד) ”of a new day at sunset. On the translation “latrine human excrement was not usually described as impure, extreme steps are taken here because of the unusual sanctity of the military camp. “Josephus thought it notable that although defecation is a natural function, the Essenes washed themselves afterward ‘as if defiled’ ” (Tigay [1996] 214, referring to J. W. 2.8.9 §149). Most commentators have here as “monument” or “sign” (see Craigie [1976] 299). Though יד rendered the term this is possible, the more likely interpretation is that of a euphemism for “latrine,” in the sense of a place designated for such use in a military bivouac area. See foot,” is so used as a euphemism for the penis. The“ ,רגל the Comment on 11:10, where is an attempt to interpret the ”[אזנך] among your implements [יתד] translation “trowel which is a pointed digging tool of some sort “like a dibble” (Tigay). The ,יתד term modern traveler in southern Europe (and other places as well) who has puzzled over what to do in moments of distress at certain “public toilets,” which are sometimes nothing more than a hole in the concrete floor, knows what is intended here in the translation “when you squat outside.” As I have observed in rural Egypt, this is much more easily done in the loosely fitting attire of peasants in Middle Eastern countries, where undergarments are often omitted. as “walks” or “travels,” see Gen 3:8; 1 Sam מתהלך On the translation of 15 30:31; 2 Sam 7:6–7; and Ps 105:13. Tigay ([1969] 214) argues that YHWH as Divine Warrior “walks in the midst of your camp” in the sense of marching with his troops to battle, not that he is “walking about within the camp” (cf. NIV, “God moves about in your camp”). See also 20:4, “YHWH [your God] is the one going with you to fight for you against your enemies to save you.” This is the language of Holy War (see Excursus: “Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel”). On the imagery of the Divine Warrior marching in the vanguard of his hosts to war, see the archaic poetry of Deut 33:2; Ps 68:8 (Eng. 7); Hab 3:3–9; and D. L. Christensen, “Num 21:14–15 and the Book of the Wars of YHWH,” CBQ 36 (1974) 359–60; idem, “The March of Conquest in Isaiah x 27c–34,” VT 26 (1976) 385–99. On what it means to “be holy,” see Lev 19:2 and the discussion of B. Levine, “Excursus 6: Biblical Concepts of Holiness (chap. 19),” in Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 256–57. Levine’s concluding remarks merit quotation: “The command to achieve holiness, to become holy, envisions a time when life would be consecrated in its fullness and when all nations would worship God in holiness. What began as a process of separating the sacred from the profane was to end as the unification of human experience, the harmonizing of man with his universe, and of man with God” (p. 257). True holiness is a gift from God, not a human achievement. As ערות ) ”noted above in the Comment on v 10, the phrase translated “a naked thing in the sense of something exposed or out in the open to be seen by all, forms an ,(דבר ע ר The repetition of the words and sounds .(דבר רע) ”inclusion with “any bad thing The use of the .דבר רע // ערות דבר :in chiastic fashion is surely intentional ר ע // ”,nakedness of the land“ ,ערות הארץ same words in 24:1, and the parallel expression in Gen 42:9 suggests an idiom of some sort, perhaps analogous to the English expression “caught with one’s pants down.” The “naked thing” in this instance is essentially the female genitals (cf. also Lam 1:8, of the personified city of Jerusalem), such that it may be understood as “caught with her pudenda exposed,” an idiom for something shameful and offensive. See the discussion of 24:1.

Explanation The motivation for cleanliness in the army camp is the holiness of God, who marches with his troops to battle. Though the laws on sanctity of the military camp in 23:10–15 applied specifically to those times when Israel actually went forth to fight against enemy nations, they were also operative in annual pilgrimage festivals when the people gathered to reenact YHWH’s Holy War and pitched their tents in battle formation about the ark of the covenant and the portable tent shrine, which was set up in the midst of the camp, particularly during the spring celebration of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the vicinity of Jericho in premonarchic Israel. The people of Israel were commanded to keep their camp pure from all forms of pollution. The individual soldiers were to be “on guard against any evil thing” (v 10). In executing their commission they must keep themselves from moral pollution in terms of overt sin or contact with idols and the accursed things found in the camps they plundered. They must also keep themselves from ceremonial and natural pollution of all sorts, such as an “event in the night,” which is normally understood to be an involuntary nocturnal emission of semen (cf. Lev 15:16–18). If this were to occur at home, a man needed only to wash himself; but in the army he must “leave the camp” and remain outside until after sundown so as to maintain ritual purity (vv 11–12). Since the camp of YHWH must have nothing offensive in it, even the latrine was to be located “outside the camp” (vv 13–14).

3. Two Laws on “True Religion” (23:16– 19 [Eng. 15–18]) Bibliography

Bialik, E., and Beinart, H. “Keleb.” EM 4:113. Bird, P. “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus.” In FS F. M. Cross. 1987. 397–19, esp. 404–6. Donner, H.,and Röllig, W. KAI. 1:82; 2:54–55 (no. 37). Feliks, Y. The Animal World of the Bible. Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1962. 34. Goodfriend, E. A. “Could keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 Actually Refer to a Canine?” In FS J. Milgrom. 1995. 381–97. Greenfield, J. C. “Asylum at Aleppo: A Note on Sefire III, 4–7.” In FS H. Tadmor. 1991. 272–78. Gruber, M. “Hebrew qĕdēšāh and Her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates.” UF 18 (1986) 133–47. ———. “The Qadesh in the Book of Kings and Elsewhere.” Tarbiz 52 (1983) 167–76. ———. “The qedeshah: What Was Her Function?” Beer-Sheva 3 (1988) 45–51. Gwaltney, W. C. The “Qadištum andIšaritum in Mesopotamian Society.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1964. Hooks, S. “Sacred Prostitution in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1985. Licht, H. Sexual Life in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1932. 350, 356, 404, 436–40. Liver, J. “Kālēb.” EM4:109–10. Margalith, O. “Keleb: Homonym or Metaphor?” VT 33 (1983) 491–94. McCullough, W. S. “Dog.” IDB 1:862. Miller, P. D. “Israel as Host to Strangers.” In Today’s Immigrants and Refugees: A Christian Understanding. Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc., 1988. 1–19. Reviv, H. “The Escaped Slaves of Shimei ben Gera.” In Galut ˒Aḥar Golah: Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart. (Heb.) Ed. A. Mirsky et al. Jerusalem: Makhon Ben-Zvi, 1988. 32–39. Soden, W. von. “Zur Stellung des ‘Geweiten’ (qdš) in Ugarit.” UF 2 (1970) 329–30. Stager, L. “Why Were Hundreds of Dogs Buried at Ashkelon?” BAR 17.3 (1991) 27–42. Thomas, D. W. “KELEBH ‘Dog’: Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old Testament.”VT 10 (1960) 410–27. Toorn, K. van der. “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel.” JBL 108 (1989) 193–205, esp. 201. Westermann, W. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955. 17–18, 38–39, 40–41. Translation and Prosodic Analysis Asylum for Fugitive Slaves [4:7] 16(15) You shall not deliver up a slave / to his master // 13 2 who has escaped to you / from his master // 20 2_ 17(16) With you / he shall dwell in your midst / 11 2 in the place that he will choose / in one of your towns / 18 2 _3 12 ס // wherever it pleases him // you shall not / oppress him

Prohibition of “Holy Prostitution” [4:7] 18(17) There shall be no “holy prostitute” / among Israel’s 18 2 daughters // and there shall be no “pagan priest” / among Israel’s 18 2_ sons // 19(18) You shall not bring a harlot’s fee / or the price of a dog / 19 2 to the house / of YHWH your God \ in payment for any 15 2 vow // for an abomination / to YHWH your God / are both of 20 3_ ס // them

Notes 17.a-a. LXX reads ἐν ὑμῖν· κατοικήσει οὗ ἐὰν ἀρέσῃ αὐτῳ, “with you, he shall dwell where he shall please.”

”.in one of“ ,באחד in one of,” for MT“ ,באחת b. SP reads.17

19.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

Form/Structure/Setting The law of asylum for escaped slaves (23:16–17) and the law prohibiting “holy prostitution” (23:18–19) are closely connected in terms of prosodic structure and belong together as a single literary unit, which stands at the center of a concentric structural pattern: A Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife 23:1 B The assembly of YHWH and sanctity of the military camp 23:2–15 X The fugitive slave and “holy prostitution” 23:16–19 B′ Three laws on protecting the poor and vulnerable 23:20–26 A′ Prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried 24:1–4 The outer frame in this structure is made up of two parallel laws on forbidden marriages (23:1 and 24:1–4). The seven laws contained within this frame (23:2–26) are arranged in three subgroups, with the laws on the fugitive slave and “holy prostitution” in the center (23:16–19). The inner frame in this structure moves from two laws on the nature of YHWH’s assembly as a military camp (23:2–15) to three specific laws that deal with ways in which the people are called on to be good “neighbors” to those who are part of YHWH’s assembly (23:20–26). The seven laws of 23:2–26 should also be studied in relation to each other, for they form a nested menorah pattern: A The assembly of YHWH 23:2–9 B The sanctity of the military camp 23:10–15 C Asylum for escaped slaves 23:16–17 X Prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 C′ Prohibition of lending at interest 23:20–21 B′ Timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH 23:22–24 A′ Right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops 23:25–26 The law prohibiting “holy prostitution” (23:18–19) is the structural center in this particular reading of Deut 23. The innermost frame is made up of two parallel laws on what it means to be a “neighbor” to those who are exploited economically: the law of asylum for escaped slaves (vv 16–17), and the law prohibiting lending at interest (vv 20–21). The next frame moves from the law on cleanliness and purity within the military camp (vv 10–15) to the law demanding the timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (vv 22–24). The outer frame moves from the laws regarding the assembly of YHWH, which raise the question as to who is to be considered one’s “neighbor” (vv 2– 9), to the law on the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (vv 25–26). It does not take much imagination to realize that there are powerful lessons to be learned in this section of Deuteronomy, lessons that call for careful reflection and proclamation. Although the two laws discussed here appear at first glance to be disparate in nature, they are connected in prosodic structure, and together they shape the content of narrative stories in Gen 32–38. The boundaries of the two laws are marked by sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 15, 17, and 19. The law of the fugitive slave (vv 16– 17) may be outlined as follows: A You shall not deliver up an escaped slave to his master 23:16 B He shall dwell in your midst 23:17a X In the place that he will choose in one of your towns 23:17b B′ Wherever it pleases him 23:17c A′ You shall not oppress him 23:17d The focus of the law is on the fact that the former slave is to be given the right of asylum in the promised land. He is to settle anywhere he chooses: “wherever it pleases him.” He is not to be extradited to his former master; nor is he to be oppressed by continuing his former status in his new homeland. Like the preceding law on the sanctity of the military camp (23:10–15), the law of the fugitive slave influenced the shape and content of the story of Jacob in Gen 32 (see Carmichael, LNB, 238–40). Having first been delivered from Laban’s hostile intent in Aram-naharaim, Jacob now faces his estranged brother Esau. He describes himself to Esau as a fugitive slave who is on his way to serve a new master, instructing his messengers to speak as follows: “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now … and I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight’ ” (Gen 32:3–5). Carmichael points out that Esau “did not treat the suppliant as a slave but rather left him free to do as he wished, to settle wherever he chose” (LNB, 239)—exactly as the law army“ ,מחנה in Deut 23:16–17 says he should do. Since Jacob/Israel, presented as a camp,” in Gen 33:8, was well received by Esau/Edom, the Edomite is “your brother” (v 8) and is thus a welcome member in the assembly of YHWH. The law as stated is a form of social idealism, which is used to shape the narrative story of the brothers Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom and the assembly of YHWH in the promised land in Gen 32–38. When read in this manner, there is no need to limit the law with Tigay ([1996] 215) to a statement about “foreign” slaves nor to ponder “the absence of a comparable law dealing with Israelite slaves.” The law on “holy prostitution” in 23:18–19 may be outlined as a circular sentence in somewhat similar fashion: A There shall be no “holy prostitute” or “pagan priest” in Israel 23:18 B You shall not bring a “harlot’s fee” or the “price of a dog” 23:19a X To the house of YHWH 23:19b B′ In payment for any vow 23:19c A′ For both of these are abhorrent to YHWH your God 23:19d Prostitution and religious activity in the service of pagan gods is abhorrent to YHWH. Payments received from those engaged in such practices are not to be brought to the house of YHWH. In terms of prosodic structure, the law of asylum for escaped slaves in 23:16–17 is connected with the following law on “holy prostitution” in 23:18–19. The two laws are scanned together as a 7:4:7:4 rhythmic structure (which can also be canted to a 6:5:5:6 pattern in syntactic accentual stress units with a mora count of 44 + 30 = 74 and 37 + 35 = 72, with v 18a functioning as a rhythmic bridge connecting these two units); and the architectural design of the whole may be outlined as follows: A You shall not deliver up an escaped slave to his master 23:16 B The slave shall dwell where he chooses; do not oppress him 23:17 X There shall be no “holy prostitute” among Israel’s children 23:18 B′ You shall bring no fees of “holy prostitution” to God’s house 23:19a A′ Both of these are abhorrent to YHWH your God 23:19b

”,holy prostitute“ ,קדשׁה In this reading, the focus of interest is on the prohibition of a pagan priest,” among Israel’s sons (v 18). The“ ,קדשׁ among Israel’s daughters or a outer frame in the above structure moves from the prohibition of extraditing an escaped slave (v 16) to the prohibition of bringing fees in the form of votive offerings derived from “holy prostitution” (v 19). It should be noted that the law of “holy prostitution” (23:18–19) is an instructive example of what I have elsewhere (The Writings: A Study Guide[North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998] 69) called the “riddle at the middle” in the structure of the literature of the Bible. As we saw at the beginning of the section of the laws of 23:1– 24:5, the prohibition of “holy prostitution” stands at the center of a concentric structure: A Laws on marriage and war 23:1–15 B The law of the fugitive slave 23:16–17 X The law prohibiting “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 B′ Laws on the protection of the poor and vulnerable 23:20–26 A′ Laws on marriage and war 24:1–5 The beginning, middle, and concluding sections of this structure all have something to do with the seventh commandment prohibiting adultery or illicit mixtures, particularly in sexual matters. The inner frame has to do with humanitarian issues that are expanded in the laws of 24:6–25:16, as shown below. The center is enigmatic in meaning, so that the situation from a literary perspective is somewhat analogous to that of Gen 6:3, which functions as a “riddle at the middle” in the curious passage on “the sons of God” .See D. L .(בנות האדם) ”and “the daughters of human beings (בני אלהים) Christensen, “Janus Parallelism in Genesis 6:3,” HS 27 (1986) 20–24. The section of laws on social ethics in 23:2–24:4 began with a law excluding “eunuchs” from the assembly of YHWH in 23:2, which was used to shape the story of Simeon and Levi’s treacherous response to the so-called rape of Dinah in Gen 34. The law on “holy prostitution” in 23:18–19 returns to that same story to form an inclusion with 23:2–7 for the first half of the collection of laws on social ethics, as the following outline suggests: A Those excluded from YHWH’s assembly—“misbegotten folk” 23:2–7 B Edom and Egypt are included in YHWH’s assembly 23:8–9 X Sanctity of the military camp: Jacob at the Jabbok 23:10–15 B′ Asylum for the fugitive slave: Israel and Edom in Canaan 23:16–17 A′ Israel and the Hivites—prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 Though the “misbegotten folk” of 23:3 may originally have been the children of prostitutes, as Craigie ([1976] 297) has suggested, the concept was expanded in 23:4– 5 to include the incestuous “children of Lot”—the Ammonites and the Moabites, who share the distinction of being excluded from the assembly of YHWH “even to the tenth generation.” This is what the outer frame of this structure is about. The inner frame focuses attention on Edom, presented as Israel’s “brother,” who is to be included in the assembly of YHWH. The center of this structure focuses on the moment when Jacob/Israel crossed over the Jabbok from a sojourn of twenty years in the foreign land of Aram-naharaim to take up residence again in the promised land alongside his brother Esau/Edom. Together with the earlier law on the exclusion of eunuchs from the assembly of YHWH in 23:2, the law prohibiting “holy prostitution” (23:18–19) plays a formative role in shaping the story of Simeon and Levi and the violence they did to the Hivites in response to the so-called rape of Dinah in Gen 34 (cf. Carmichael, LNB, 240–43). In the eyes of Simeon and Levi, the Canaanite prince Shechem had treated their sister Dinah as a harlot (Gen 34:31); thus the first attempt to forge a link between the Israelites and the Canaanites in the promised land ended in violence with the mass slaughter of all the newly circumcised male Hivites. The next chapter has Jacob removing foreign gods from his own household before fulfilling his vow to YHWH (Gen 35:1–7). Carmichael says this story “is specifically concerned with payment to God’s house in connection with the fulfillment of a vow and recognizes that impure worship, service to foreign gods, is incompatible with such payment” (LNB, 242). The subject of “holy prostitution” is used to tie this incident to other aspects of the larger story in Genesis. Tamar seduced her father-in-law in order to continue the family line through Judah (Gen 38). Jacob’s own involvement with Canaanite women and their religious practices took place just after his separation from (הקדשׁה) ”his brother Esau (Gen 34). Judah actually called Tamar “the holy prostitute when he sought to pay Tamar for her services (38:21). “In paying for her services as a cult prostitute (his description of her), he was in effect paying for the increase in Israel’s family numbers, an outcome that would ordinarily warrant tangible thanks to Yahweh” (Carmichael, LNB, 242). Thus the story of Jacob/Israel is that of an Israelite paying into the house of God the gains from “holy prostitution” in the form of a tenth of the wealth God has given him. In so doing he has violated the law of Deut 23:18–19, which appears to be a deliberately ambiguous invitation for an able teacher to discuss and amplify each of its words, so as to guide the curious into “a more fantastic country”—the literary world of the Bible, and the book of Genesis in particular.

Comment 16–17 “You shall not deliver up a slave to his master.” This command runs contrary to all known ancient Near Eastern law codes, which forbade the harboring of runaway slaves. In particular, note the words of an Aramaic treaty text known as Sefire III (KAI, no. 224; ANET, 660), which expresses the opposite of the words that appear here: “he shall dwell in your midst, in the place that he will choose in one of your towns, wherever it pleases him.” which are translated here in a general ,קדשׁ and קדשׁה The words 19–18 collective sense as “holy prostitution,” may be euphemisms. It is best to avoid the terms “cultic prostitute” and “temple prostitute” (BDB, 873) altogether, however, because of the misinformation these expressions communicate. The description “holy prostitution” in this commentary is an attempt to draw the reader’s attention to the use of the to be holy,” in reference to both female and male cultic activity in the“ ,קדשׁ root refers to (אתנן זונה) ”service of pagan deities in this passage. The phrase “harlot’s fee income received by prostitutes for their services; they were sometimes paid in kind, refers (ומחיר כלב) ”such as “a kid from the flock” (Gen 38:17). The “price of a dog either to the “barter off a canine” in traditional Jewish interpretation or to income received by “pagan priests” (men functioning in behalf of pagan deities) for their illicit dog,” in this context is generally interpreted as a“ ,כלב religious activities. The word male prostitute, and has been rendered as “sodomite” (KJV, ASV) or “catamite” (J. Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible [New York: Harper & Row, 1954] 226; a in כלב catamite is a boy kept for pederastic purposes). It should be noted, however, that the Hebrew Bible is not “an opprobrious term for a male prostitute” (The Jerusalem Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966] 247 n. 23.d). That Joshua’s compatriot is so named is evidence to the contrary. Goodfriend has argued (כלב) Caleb convincingly that we need to take a closer look at traditional Jewish interpretation, literally as a canine (FS J. Milgrom, 381–97). See also the כלב which renders discussion of Winton Thomas (VT 10 [1960] 410–27), and note the association of dogs as two קדשׁ and קדשׁה in 1 Kgs 22:38. Gruber sees (זנות) and prostitutes (כלבים) separate and wholly distinct kinds of professionals (UF 18 [1986] 133–47). however, was a priest ,קדשׁ harlot.” The“ ,זונה was the equivalent of the קדשׁה The or diviner in a heterodox, non-Yahwistic cult. The association of the two terms here is poetic in the sense that it is based primarily on association of sounds and the common verbal root, not on the identification of the two professionals in terms of social role or function in society. The recent discovery of a huge dog cemetery from the Persian period at Ashkelon in Israel raises new questions about the possible significance of dogs in certain pagan cults, perhaps in relation to gods of healing, which may help to explain the objection to “the price of a dog” here (Stager, BAR 17.3 [1991] 26–42).

Explanation Though virtually all commentators have interpreted the law of the fugitive slave (23:16–17) as referring to a slave who comes to Israel from a foreign country, it is also possible to see Jacob/Israel as the slave who has left a foreign master in another country to find asylum in the land of Canaan. What the law bans, then, is precisely what parallel laws in the ancient Near East enjoin: the extradition of the fugitive slave. “The only thing remotely close to this biblical law in the ancient world is the practice at certain temples of granting asylum to slaves fleeing harsh treatment by their masters” (Tigay [1996] 215). Even in these cases, the asylum was only temporary, designed to protect the slave until he could come to terms with his former master or be sold to another master. (See Greenfield, FS H. Tadmor, 272–78; see also W. Westermann, Slave Systems, 17–18, 38–39, 40–41; citations from Tigay [1996] 387, n. 59.) The law of asylum for escaped slaves was intended to remind the people of Israel that they had been slaves in Egypt. Those who have known firsthand the degradation of human slavery understand; we too are in a position to begin to understand why Israel’s policy against extradition flies in the face of other law codes produced by the powerful nations responsible for inflicting slavery on subject peoples. A good example of the application of the law of asylum for escaped slaves has emerged in recent years in Thailand, where World Vision International has established youth camps as places of asylum for young girls who have been sold into “sex slavery” by their own parents in what is surely one of the vilest examples of human exploitation known. It is estimated that more than a million girls are enslaved in this manner at this point in time, and that such “sex slaves” have been exported to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and elsewhere. It is our responsibility under God’s law to provide asylum for such innocent victims of slavery, and to take positive collective action to stamp out such evils at their source. The law on prostitution in Deut 23:18–19 is the source of much of the confusion on the subject of “cultic prostitution” because the Hebrew words used here for a female ,קדשׁ come from the verbal root (קדשׁ) ”and a male “pagan priest (קדשׁה) prostitute “to be holy,” with the idea of being set apart, or consecrated, to God. Thus the idea of a “temple prostitute” was an obvious way to interpret the primary words in an elusive as קדשׁ and קדשׂה text. I have chosen to translate the combination of the two terms “holy prostitution,” in a general sense, in order to draw the reader’s attention to the root and to the fact that the individuals in question, so far as the law and קדשׁ meaning of related narratives are concerned, are indeed engaged in prostitution (as females) and illicit religious activity in the service of a pagan deity (as males). One of the products of the feminist movement of recent years has been the reassessment of the role of women past and present. Few subjects illustrate the positive contributions of this movement as well as what is often called “cultic prostitution.” “There is no subject in the field of ancient Near Eastern religion on which more has been written, with so much confidence, on the basis of so little explicit evidence.… There is, in fact, no evidence available to show that ritual intercourse was ever performed by laymen anywhere in the ancient Near East, nor that sacred marriage … was practiced in or near Israel during the biblical period” (Tigay [1996] 481)—the vivid and persuasive description of James Michener notwithstanding (see The Source[New York: Random House, 1965]), chap. 3, “Level XIV: Of Death and Life”. Physical prostitution is a gross evil, one that usually results in a form of sex slavery and premature death. But the metaphor of prostitution in the form of the activities of a “pagan priest” raises deeper issues. The “pagan priest” is one who traffics in the service of some god other than YHWH and who salves his conscience by using the proceeds of such activity to present gifts “to the house of YHWH.” In the metaphorical sense, this too is a form of prostitution, with the same evil consequences at the end of the road: slavery and death. 4. Three More Laws on “True Religion” (23:20– 26 [Eng. 19–25]) Bibliography

Borowski, O. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. 58– 59. Cohn, H. H. “Usury.” EncJud 16:30–32. Eichler, B. L. Indenture at Nuzi. New Haven: Yale UP, 1973. Ellis, E. E. “Vow.” New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1962. 1313. Gamoran, H.“The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest.” JNES 30 (1971) 127–34. Ginsberg, H. L. “Psalms and Inscriptions of Petition and Acknowledgment.” In Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume. Ed. A. Marx et al. 2 vols. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945. 1:163–64. Greenberg, M. “On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in Hebrew Scriptures.” AJSR 1 (1976) 78–81. ———. “Religion: Stability and Ferment.” In WHJP 4/2 (1979). 91. Haran, M. “The Yearly Family Sacrifice.” In Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. 1978. Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. 304–16. Lipinåski, E. “Nešek and Tarbit in the Light of Epigraphic Evidence.” OLP 10 (1979) 133–41. Milgrom, J. “Excursus 66: “Oaths, Vows, and Dedications.” In Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. 488– 90. Neufeld, E. “The Prohibition against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws.” HUCA 26 (1955) 355–57.Porten, B. Archives from Elephantine. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1968. 77. Silver, M. Prophets and Markets. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1983. 65–66, 237.Stein, S. “The Laws on Interest in the Old Testament.” JTS 4 (1953) 161–70. Tigay, J. “On Some Aspects of Prayer in the Bible.” AJSR 1 (1976) 372. Toorn, K.van der. “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel.” JBL 108 (1989) 196. Veenhof, K. R. “An Ancient Anatolian Money-Lender: His Loans, Securities, and Debt-Slaves.” In FS Lubor Matouš. Ed. B. Hruška and G. Komoróczy. Budapest: Eotvos Lorand Univ., 1978. 282–84.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Prohibition of Lending at Interest [8:7]

20(19) You shall not lend on interest to your brother / 11 1 interest on money \ interest on food // 9 1 interest / on anything / that is lent // 12 3 21(20) To the foreigner you may lend on interest / 7 1 but to your brother / you shall not lend on interest // 13 2_ In order that YHWH your God / may bless you / 17 2 in all / you undertake / upon the land / 15 3 _2 15 ס // that you are entering / to take possession of it

Timely Fulfillment of Vows [(4:5):(5:4)]

22(21) When you vow a vow / to YHWH your God / 17 2 you shall not put off / paying it // 11 2_ For YHWH your God / will surely require it / of you // 25 3 and it will be a sin / in you // 9 2_ 23(22) And if you refrain \ from making a vow // 7 1 it will not be a sin / in you // 8 2 24(23) the things passing your lips / you shall be careful to do // 20 2_ What you vow / to YHWH your God \ is a freewill offering / 23 2 _2 10 ס // that you have promised / with your own mouth

The Right to Eat from a Neighbor’s Unharvested Crops [7] [8]

25(24) When you enter / your neighbor’s vineyard / 13 2 you may eat grapes / freely / until you are satisfied // 17 3 _2 10 ס // but into your container / you shall not put them 26(25) When you enter / your neighbor’s standing grain / 14 2 you may pluck off ears / in your hand // 16 2 But a sickle / you may not wield / 10 2 _2 8 ס // on / your neighbor’s standing grain

Notes

20.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 20.b. LXX adds waw-conj.

Prosodic analysis .(לאחיך =) ”c. LXXML add τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, “to your brothers.20 favors MT.

extending of your hands,” for“ ,משׁלח ידיך a-a. Many Heb. MSS and SP read.21 ”extending of your hand”; LXX reads τοῖς ἔργοις σου, “your deeds“ ,משׁלח ידך MT .( מעשׁיך =) 22.a. One Heb. MS and Syr. add waw-conj. 23.a. One Heb. MS, Syr. MSS, and Vg. omit waw-conj.

23.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. ,ליהוה אלהיך a-a. LXX and OL read τῷ θεῷ (σου)), “to (your) God,” for MT.24 “to YHWH your God.” Prosodic analysis favors MT.

24.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. in“ ,בידך in your hands,” for MT“ ,בידיך a. A few Heb. MSS and LXX read.26 your hand.” Form/Structure/Setting The three laws on protecting the poor and vulnerable in the society of ancient Israel (23:20–26) are framed by two parallel laws on prohibited sexual union: prostitution (23:18–19) and remarriage to one’s former wife who has remarried in the interim (24:1– 4). Both of these situations are considered to violate the seventh commandment (prohibiting adultery), as shown above in the laws on marital and sexual misconduct in 22:13–29. A Prohibition of “holy prostitution” 23:18–19 B Prohibition of lending at interest 23:20–21 X Timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH 23:22–24 B′ Right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops 23:25–26 A′ Prohibition of remarriage if one’s former wife has remarried 24:1–4 The inner frame in this structure presents parallel laws on specific ways in which a member of the covenant community in ancient Israel is to demonstrate that he loves his neighbor: by not lending at interest to those in need (23:20–21), and by observing the right that members of the covenant community have to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (23:25–26). In the center of this structure we find a law on the timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (23:22–24), which forms an inclusion with the law in the first half of the outer frame prohibiting the use of income from “holy prostitution” to pay vows made to YHWH (23:19). The prohibition of prostitution itself in 23:18 forms an inclusion with the second half of the outer frame, the forbidden remarriage in 24:1–4. In short, the arrangement of the laws here is carefully worked out to form another “wheel within a wheel” in the architectural design of Deuteronomy. Though 23:20–26 is a single literary unit from the point of view of its prosodic structure, it is divided into four parts with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the end of vv 21, 24, 25, and 26. It also contains three separate laws that differ in subject matter. The content of the literary unit as a whole may be outlined as follows: A You shall not lend on interest anything to your brother 23:20 B You may lend on interest to the foreigner in your midst 23:21 X When you make a vow to YHWH, do not put off fulfilling it 23:22–24 B′ When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat grapes 23:25 A′ When you enter his standing grain, you may pluck ears to eat 23:26 The focus of attention in such a reading is on the timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (vv 22–24). On one side of this center we have two laws regarding charging interest on loans (vv 20–21) that are set over against two laws to eat freely from a neighbor’s unharvested crops of grapes (v 25) and grain (v 26). The law on the timely fulfillment of vows to YHWH may in turn be outlined in the same manner, as Seitz has observed (Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien [1971] 177–78): A When you make a vow to YHWH, do not put off fulfilling it 23:22a B YHWH will require it of you and you will incur guilt 23:22b X If you do not make a vow, you incur no guilt 23:23 B′ The things passing your lips you shall be careful to do 23:24a A′ Your vow to YHWH is a freewill offering you have promised 23:24b In this reading, the focus shifts to the voluntary aspect of making vows to YHWH. There is nothing wrong with a decision not to make a vow. Guilt is incurred only when a vow is made and a person fails to fulfill it in a timely manner. According to Carmichael’s analysis (LNB, 243–53), the three laws regarding care for the poor and vulnerable in 23:20–26, like the earlier law of the fugitive slave in 23:16–17, are used to shape the stories about Jacob in the land of Canaan after the crossing of the Jabbok in Gen 32. The first law in this brief series, which concerns loans on interest (Deut 23:20–21), is applied to the story of Jacob’s growing wealth (Gen 28– 34). As we take a closer look at the details in this story we see how the law prohibiting the lending at interest to a brother was used to shape the content of the narrative in Genesis. “Esau wanted to give Jacob some of his men to help him look after his possessions. This offer was given freely and carried no obligation on Jacob’s part to pay for the service. It was a fine brotherly example of lending without interest” (Carmichael, LNB, 244). But Esau’s descendants, the Edomites, acted differently when the Israelites asked permission to pass through their territory, in spite of the Israelites’ promise to keep out of their fields and vineyards, and despite the law on the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops in vv 25–26, which suggests that this was normal hospitality among “brothers.” Esau’s example of hospitality was also shaped in part by the law of the fugitive slave (vv 16–17), as we have already seen. In this regard Carmichael has made the interesting observation that “a returning slave in most instances, if not in Jacob’s, would need loans without interest to enable him to live a free life back in his homeland” (LNB, 245). The second part of the law on loans (vv 20–21), which grants permission to lend with interest to foreigners, plays a role in shaping the story about Jacob in relation to the Hivites in Gen 34. As things turned out, Israel gained much population and property at their expense: their men were killed, but the women and children joined Israel’s ranks. Carmichael has shown that the story in Genesis focuses on extraordinary events, whereas Deuteronomy describes normal Israelite relations with approved foreign groups in which gain accrues to Israel from straightforward business transactions. The second law on the timely fulfillment of vows carries the reader back again to Gen 28, when Jacob’s original vow was made to YHWH. From there it moves to Gen 35, when that vow was fulfilled, in a timely manner. In giving a vow, however unnecessary it may actually be, a person promises to give back to “the sanctuary” (see Milgrom, Numbers, 488, and Comment on vv 2–24) something in exchange for God’s blessing, and the law requires its prompt fulfillment. “This aspect of the law contrasts with lending on interest where a delayed payment is of the essence of the transaction. The law about cultic prostitution, which comes just before the lending law, is related in that it specifically concerns the kind of payment that might be made to the deity by way of fulfilling a vow” (Carmichael, LNB, 247). The law about the permission to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (vv 25–26) shapes the manner in which the story of the relation between Israel and Edom is picked up in the more recent past, from the perspective of Moses as lawgiver. In the words of Moses to the king of Edom, “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the adversity that has befallen us.… Now let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, neither will we drink water from a well; we will go along the King’s Highway, we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, until we have passed through your territory” (Num 20:14–17). Yet even refusing the right granted by this law did not alter the Edomites’ hostility.

Comment

suggests a money economy, which is (תשׁיך נשׁך) ”To “lend on interest 20 somewhat misleading. The loans in question are primarily charitable loans “to your Though Silver has made a case for the existence of interest-bearing .(לאחיך) ”brothers commercial loans in ancient Israel (Prophets and Markets, 65ff., 327), the consensus of scholarly opinion is still reflected by Tigay: “There is no evidence that there was a money market of any significance, or that solvent Israelites commonly borrowed for commercial or other purposes, though a couple of passages imply that not all borrowers were poor (Exod. 22:24; Deut. 24:12)” ([1996] 217). This prohibition has no parallel in the laws of the ancient Near East, where rates of interest were ruinous: 20–25 percent for silver and 30–50 percent for grain, and sometimes higher (G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. [1952–55], 1:173–77; Tigay [1996] 217). which is here translated as “interest,” is sometimes interpreted as ,נשׁך The term “advance interest” in the sense of money deducted from the loan at the outset, because and (נשׁך) ”means “to bite.” Ezek 18:8 refers to “lending at interest נשׁך the verbal root .( תרבית) ”collecting increase“ 21 “To the foreigner you may lend on interest” (cf. 15:3). The “foreigner” in ancient Israel was usually a businessman traveling for purposes of profit, not subsistence living. There is no moral obligation to forgo interest in such cases. It should be noted, as Mayes has observed ([1981] 321), that only Deuteronomy explicitly allows lending on interest to a foreigner. 22–24 The content of these verses has no parallel in the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:22–23:33). Its parallel in Eccl 5:3–4 (Eng. 4–5) suggests that we have here a wisdom saying (C. Brekelmans, “Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy,” in SBTS 3:123– 34). The making of “a vow to YHWH your God” was a normal expression of worship in ancient Israel. “All vows in the Bible are dedications to the sanctuary,” according to Milgrom (Numbers,488). Hannah’s vow is illustrative: “O LORD of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and … give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you … until the day of his death” (1 Sam 1:11 NRSV). When such a vow is made, the law states: “you shall not put off paying it.” The text does not specify, however, what a reasonable time is for fulfilling vows made to YHWH. The rule of thumb that emerged in Judaism is that in most circumstances, the vow was to be fulfilled at the occasion of the next pilgrimage festival. In subsequent Jewish tradition, it was not considered late until after three festivals (Sifre 63; Tigay [1996] 219). Hannah took the child to the central sanctuary at Shiloh after she had weaned him (1 Sam 1:24), which was certainly more than a single calendar year. If a person fails to fulfill the law in a reasonable time, the law states that “it will be a sin in you.” This same warning appears again in 24:14–15 in regard to delayed payment of wages due. The statement “if you refrain from making a vow it will not be a sin in you” indicates that making vows is a voluntary act. There is no penalty for not making a vow, but there is for failure to keep the vow once it is made—“the things passing your lips translated as “freewill offering,” appears ,נדבה you shall be careful to do.” The word also in12:6. 25–26 “When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard” or his field of “standing grain,” a person was permitted to eat on the spot sufficient to satisfy one’s hunger, but no more.

Explanation Paying interest on loans is so much a part of daily life in the modern world that the casual reader would be surprised at the law prohibiting lending at interest in 23:20–21. What motivated this law was the desire to prohibit exploitation of the poor. The law on the timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (23:22–24) raises significant issues. To make a vow to YHWH and not to follow through is contrary to the very spirit of the covenant made between God and his people. The law establishing the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (23:25– 26) provided an interesting occasion for a dispute between Jesus and certain Pharisees in Matt 12:1–8. The issue was not that of stealing when his disciples plucked someone else’s grain, for that plucking was permitted under this law. The issue was that the incident took place on the Sabbath, and thus they were falsely accused of violating the fourth commandment (Deut 5:12–15). The combining of the three laws in 23:20–26 on matters concerning care for the poor and the vulnerable in that society within a single prosodic structure suggests that we are primarily dealing with humanitarian issues here; and that the reading of these laws in relation to the associated narratives in Genesis is of greater worth than mere comparative study of ancient legal traditions. The individual laws, as recorded here, were introductory to telling stories based on those laws, the stories being the essence of the Torah.

E. Sixteen Laws on Marriage, War, and “True Religion” (24:1–25:19)

1–2. Forbidden Remarriage and Military Deferral of a New Husband (24:1–5) Bibliography

Amran, D. W. The Jewish Law of Divorce according to Bible and Talmud. New York: Hermon, 1969. 1–31. Anderson, G. A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance.University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1991. 27–37, 55–57. Boschi, B. G. “Problemi della Famiglia nella Bibbia.” Sacra Doctrina 20 (1975) 395–417. Daube, D. “Concerning Methods of Bible- Criticism: Late Law in Early Narratives.” ArOr 17.1 (1949) 89–99. ———. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 40–43. Epstein, L. M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. HSS 12. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942. Fensham, F. C. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES 21 (1962) 129– 39. Finkelstein, J. J. “Cutting the sissiktu in Divorce Proceedings.” WO 8 (1976) 236–40.—— —. “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws.” JAOS 86 (1966) 362–63. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 1988. 307–12. ———. “Torah and Tradition.” In Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Ed. D. A. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 275– 300. Fisher, L. R. “An International Judgment.” InThe Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets. Ed. L. R. Fisher. AnOr 48. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972. 14–19. Friedman, M. “Divorce upon the Wife’s Demand as Reflected in Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza.” JLA 4 (1981) 103–27. ———. “Israel’s Response in Hosea 2:17b: ‘You Are My Husband.’ ” JBL 99 (1980) 199–204, esp. 199 n. 1. ———. “Termination of the Marriage upon the Wife’s Request: A Palestinian Ketubba Stipulation.” PAAJR 37 (1969) 29–55. Friedman, S.“The Case of the Woman with Two Husbands in Talmudic and Near Eastern Law.” ILR 15 (1980) 530– 58. Geller, M. J. “The Elephantine Papyri and Hosea 2:3.”JSJ 8 (1977) 139–48. Granqvist, H. Marriage Conditions. 1931–35. 2:281–82. Greengus, S. “A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia.” HUCA 40–41 (1969–70) 33–44. Gurewicz, S. “Divorce in Jewish Law.” Res Iudicatae 7 (1956) 357–62. Hobbes, T. R. “Jeremiah 3, 1–5 and Deuteronomy 24, 1–4.” ZAW 86 (1974) 23–29. Hunt, H. B. “Attitudes toward Divorce in Post-Exilic Judaism.” BibIll 12 (1986) 62–65. Kysar, M., and Kysar, R. The Asundered. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978. Lehmann, M. R. “Gen 2, 24 as the Basis for Divorce in Halakhah and New Testament.” ZAW 72 (1960) 263–67. L’Hour, J. “Une législation criminelle dans le Deutéronome.” Bib 44 (1963) 1–28, esp. 24. Lipin ski, E. “The Wife’s Right to Divorce in the Light of an Ancient Near Eastern Tradition.” JLA4 (1981) 9–27. Lloret, V. J. A. “El Pacado en el Deuteronomio.” EstBib 29 (1970) 267–85, esp. 272–74. Malul, M. “ ʿSissiktu’ and ‘sikku’— Their Meaning and Function.” BO 43 (1986) 19–36. Martin, J. D. “The Forensic Background to Jeremiah iii 1.” VT 19 (1969) 82–92. Marucci, C. Parole di Gesù sul Divorzio. Aloisiana 16. Naples: Morcelliana, 1982. Moran, W. L. “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit.” JNES 18 (1959) 280–81. Müller, H.-P., and Raming, I.“Women and Judaism.” TD 34 (1987) 216– 18. Nembach, U. “Ehescheidung nach alttestamentlichem und jüduschem Recht.” TZ 26 (1970) 161–71. Neudecker, R.“Das ‘Ehescheidungsgesetz’ von Dtn 24, 1–4 nach altjüdischer Auslegung.” Bib 75 (1994) 350–87. ———. Frührabbinisches Ehescheidungsrecht. BibOr 39. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. 1944. 244. Otto, E. “Das Verbot der Wiederherstellung einer geschiedenen Ehe: Deuteronomium 24, 1–4 im Kontext des israelitische und judäischen Eherechts.” UF 24 (1993) 301–10. Pardee, D. “A New Ugaritic Letter.” BO 34 (1977) 3–20.Phillips, A. “Another Example of Family Law.” VT 30 (1980) 240–45. ———. “Another Look at Adultery.” JSOT 20 (1981) 3– 25. Praag, A. van. Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien. Allard Pierson Stichting Archaeologisch-Historische Bijdragen 12. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1945.Rabinowitz, J. J. “The Great Sin in Ancient Egyptian Marriage Contracts.” JNES 18 (1959) 73. ———. “Marriage Contracts in Ancient Egypt in the Light of Jewish Sources.” HTR 46 (1953) 91–97. Rowley, H. H. “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy.” In FS T. H. Robinson. 1950. 157–74. Toeg, A.“Does Deuteronomy 24:1–4 Incorporate a General Law on Divorce?” DiIs 2 (1970) v–xxiv. Wambacq, B. N. “De Libello Repudii.” VD 33 (1955) 331–35.Westbrook, R. “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1–4.” In Studies in Bible. Ed. S. Japhet. ScrHier 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. 399–403. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLA Sup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27–44, esp. 37. ———. “On Divorce in Old Testament Times.” RIDA 4 (1957) 117–28. ———. “The Restoration of Marriage.” JJS 17 (1966) 1–11. Zakovitch, Y. “The Woman’s Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce.” JLA 4 (1981) 28–46, esp. 40.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis On Restoring a Marriage If One’s Former Wife Has Remarried [(7:5):(7:7):(5:7)]

1 When a man takes / a woman / and marries her // 16 3 and it shall be / if she does not find favor in his eyes / 18 2 because he finds in her / “a naked thing” / 13 2_ And he writes for her / a bill of divorce / 15 2 and he puts it in her hand / 9 1 and he sends her out / from his house // 10 2_ 2 And she goes forth \ from his house // 11 1 and she proceeds / to become the wife of another man // 18 2 3 And the latter husband / hates her / 17 2 and he writes her / a bill of divorce / 14 2_ And he puts it in her hand / 9 1 and he sends her out / from his house // 9 2 Or if the latter man / dies / 18 2 who took her to himself / to be his wife // 13 2_ 4 Her former husband who divorced her is not permitted / 19 1 to turn to take her again / to be his wife / 17 2 after / she has been defiled / 12 2_ For that is an abomination \ before YHWH // 16 1 and you shall not bring sin / to the land / 13 2 _4 20 ס // that / YHWH your God / gives you / for an inheritance

Deferral of a New Husband from Military Service [6:6]

5 When a man takes / a new wife / 14 2 he shall not / go forth / with the army / 11 3 and he shall not be assigned to it / 11 1_ In every instance // there is exemption from obligations / 10 2 he shall remain at home / one year / 14 2 _2 13 ס // to bring happiness / to his wife whom he has taken

Notes .and he comes to her.” Prosodic analysis supports MT“ ,ובא אליה a. SP adds.1

2.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as disj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 2.b-b. LXX omits. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 3.a-a. Vg. omits. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

the man”; some LXX“ ,האישׁ her husband,” for MT“ ,בעלה b. SP reads.3 witnesses add αὐτῆς, “her.”

4.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as disj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. .your God”). Prosodic analysis supports MT“ ,אלהיך =) b. LXX adds τοῦ θεοῦ.4 4.c. Reading 2 pl. with SP and LXX as lectio difficilior. It is more difficult to explain the appearance of the Numeruswechsel here in SP and LXX, if it is not original, than to explain its omission in MT.

to all” or“ , ל כל for MT כל a. A few Heb. MSS, LXX, Tg.MS, and Tg. Ps.-J. read.5 “in every (instance).”

exempt” (cf. Jonah 1:14 for the same“ ,נקי innocent,” for MT“ ,נקיא b. SP reads.5 confusion of these two terms).

”.and he shall cause to rejoice“ , ְ ו שִׂ מַּ ח for MT ( ְ ו שָׂ מַ ח =) c-c. Syr. reads wnḥdʾ.5 Prosodic analysis favors MT slightly with a mora count of three rather than four.

Form/Structure/Setting In terms of the prosodic analysis presented in this commentary, the laws in the sixth of the eleven weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings from Deuteronomy (21:10–25:19) are in three major parts: 21:10–23:1; 23:1–24:4; and 24:5– 25:19. The law prohibiting marrying one’s father’s wife (23:1) functions as a bridge connecting the first and second section. The situation is somewhat similar in regard to the two laws in 24:1–5, which also serve to connect the second and third sections in a more complex manner. From a literary point of view, the laws of 24:1–5 are transitional in nature, completing the previous section (23:1–24:4) and introducing what follows in the rest of Deut 24: A Forbidden remarriage and one-year deferral for new husband 24:1–5 B Taking a millstone as distrained property and kidnapping 24:6–7 X Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 B Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 A′ Humanitarian concerns: care for the poor and vulnerable 24:14–22 Details within this structure, and its place within the design of the larger group of laws protecting the poor and vulnerable in 24:5–25:19, are discussed below. Here it is sufficient to note that the laws on renovating a marriage (vv 1–4) and military deferral of a new husband (v 5) function as a single literary unit from a prosodic point of view, which is set over against three laws aimed at protecting the poor and the vulnerable in Israelite society: timely payment of wages (vv 14–15), prohibition of transgenerational punishment (v 16), and the law protecting sojourners, orphans, and widows (vv17–22). The central law on dealing with “leprosy” (vv 8–9), which displays the familiar quality of the “riddle at the middle,” is framed by three laws with much in common: the taking of a millstone as pledge (v 6) and the theft of a fellow Israelite (v 7), both of which are set over against a law that sets limits in regard to taking and holding property taken in pledge on a loan (vv 10–13). The laws in 21:10–23:1, which are structured in relation to the seventh commandment (prohibition of adultery), deal primarily with family laws (including a group of six laws on marital and sexual misconduct in 22:13–29) and certain “illicit mixtures” (22:5, 9–11). Though the laws in 23:2–24:4, which deal with matters of social ethics, are structured in relation to the seventh commandment (particularly in regard to three laws that include the expression “When a man takes a woman” in 23:1 and 24:1, 5), they include laws corresponding to the first three of the Ten Commandments (on our relationship with God) and the last three of the Ten Commandments (on theft, false witnesses, and coveting) as well, including ones that pertain to worship (23:22–24), war (23:10–15; 24:5), and the protection of the poor and vulnerable (23:20–26). The third and final section of laws (24:5–25:19) in the sixth of the weekly portions in the lectionary cycle (21:10–25:19) includes thirteen laws dealing with humanitarian issues (24:6–25:16), which are framed by two laws on war (24:5 and 25:17–19), with a law on marriage in the center (25:5–10). The section as a whole may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A Deferral of a new husband from military service 24:5 B Eight laws protecting the poor and vulnerable 24:6–22 C Limits on flogging; not muzzling an ox 25:1–4 X Levirate marriage 25:5–10 C′ Immodest intervention in a fight 25:11–13 B Honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remembering the Amalekite aggression 25:17–19 The outer frame in this structure moves from a transitional law that deals with both marriage and war (24:5), to the law on levirate marriage in the center (25:5–10), to a final law dealing with YHWH’s Holy War (25:17–19). The outermost frame moves from a series of seven laws on ruinous actions against a fellow Israelite (24:6–22), which is set over against a single law on a similar subject: honest weights and measures (25:13–16). The innermost frame in this structure contains three laws: limits on flogging and an injunction not to muzzle an ox when it threshes (25:1–4). This law is set over against the curious law on immodest intervention in a fight on the part of a man’s wife (25:11–12). In the center is the law on levirate marriage (25:5–10), which marks the conclusion of a series of five laws on marriage (21:10–14; 23:1; 24:1–4; 24:5; 25:5–10). The preceding laws on matters of social ethics in 23:1–26 were used to shape the narrative in Genesis that concerns Israel’s interaction with foreign peoples: Ammon and Moab (Gen 19), Aram (Gen 28–31), Edom (Gen 32–36), the Hivites in the land of Canaan (Gen 34), and Egypt (Gen 37–50). In terms of the narrative stories in Genesis, the focus was on the person of Jacob in relation to his brother Esau (Edom) and on Jacob’s children, the twelve tribes of Israel. Deut 23 began with a law that was used to shape the story of Abraham’s kinship with Lot’s descendants, the Ammonites and the Moabites. Deut 24 begins with laws that shape the stories of Abraham himself. The previous law on the right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops functioned in a transitional manner in shaping the narrative stories within the Torah by shifting attention from Jacob and Esau in Genesis to that of Israel and Edom in the more recent past, from the perspective of Moses—namely the incident when messengers were sent from to the king of Edom with the request that the Israelites be given permission to pass through his land (Num 20:14–17). Carmichael’s observations are apropos (LNB, 255): “At an earlier period in time, Israel’s renowned ancestor, Abraham, was likewise traveling near Kadesh and sojourned in Gerar (Genesis 20). He too anticipated enmity from the ruler of that region, Abimelech, king of Gerar.” As we observed in the discussion of 23:2–9, the narrative structure of the story of Abram in Gen 12 mirrors that of the larger structure of the story of Jacob/Israel (Gen 32–37), while anticipating the story of Jacob’s descent into Egypt and the exodus from Egypt under Moses as well. The laws of 23:5–25:19 were used to shape the narrative of Genesis (Gen 21:9– 12; 24; 31:4–42; 34; 37–47, esp. 38) and other passages (Exod 16;17:1–14; Num 12:1– 14). The relation between the individual laws and the narrative stories are explored in detail below. In anticipation of that discussion, it is useful to outline the larger structural design of the narrative in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers against Deut 24–25: A Gen 21:9–12: Isaac and Ishmael—millstone as pledge 24:5–6 B Gen 37:26–28: sale of Joseph—theft of a fellow Israelite 24:7 C Num 12:1–14: Miriam’s leprosy—dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 D Gen 24 (Gen 15): a wife for Isaac—distrained property 24:10–13 E Gen 31:4–42: Jacob and Laban—the hired servant 24:14–15 F Gen 34: Hamor and his son—fathers and sons 24:16 X Gen 37–47: Joseph in Egypt—protecting the vulnerable 24:17–22 F′ Gen 37–47: Joseph in Egypt—limits on flogging 25:1–3 E′ Gen 38: Judah and Tamar—unmuzzled ox 25:4 D′ Gen 38: Judah and Tamar—levirate marriage 25:5–10 C′ Gen 38: Judah and Tamar—immodest intervention in fight 25:11–12 B′ Gen 42–44; Exod 16: Joseph and manna—honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Exod 17:1–14: Amalek’s attack—extermination of Amalekites 25:17–19 The focus of the laws in 24:5–25:19, so far as the narrative in Genesis is concerned, is on the stories of Jacob’s twelve sons (the tribes of Israel) in Gen 37–50. Jacob’s descent into Egypt is introduced at the outset (in the law on the “theft” of a fellow Israelite in Deut 24:7), which is set over against the stories of Joseph in Egypt in Gen 42–44 and the law of honest weights and measures (Deut 24:13–16). The second half of the structure expands the laws with stories about Joseph and Judah, using a series of three successive laws in each case. The Genesis narrative in the first half of the above structure, which corresponds with the laws in Deut 24:5–16, completes a series of three laws that pertain to stories of Abraham (24:1–6), including the birth of his son Isaac (24:5) and his marriage to Rebekah (24:6); and moves on to the marriage of Isaac (24:10–13), along with a brief review of the stories about his son Jacob with Laban in Aram-naharaim (24:14–15), and Hamor with his sons in Canaan (24:16), which stories were the focus of attention for the laws in the previous section (23:1–24:4). It is useful at this point to examine some of the more prominent literary structures in Genesis that reflect the sequence of laws here in Deut 24–25. The narrative tradition of Gen 37–50 may be outlined as follows: A Joseph and his dreams Gen 37 B Judah and Tamar: Judah begets Perez and Zerah Gen 38 X Joseph in Egypt: his rise to power by interpreting dreams Gen 39:1–44:17 B′ Judah’s speech: “Keep me in place of the lad Benjamin” Gen 44:18–34 A′ Fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams: Jacob’s family in Egypt Gen 45–50 As we will see in the discussion below, these stories are shaped, at least in part, by the individual laws in Deut 24:7–25:16. In this narrative structure the focus of attention is on Joseph in Egypt, reflecting the laws on protecting the vulnerable in 24:17–25:3. Attention then shifts to the person of Judah in the land of Canaan, as reflected in the laws of 25:5–12. The corresponding narrative tradition in Genesis may be outlined as follows: A Judah persuades his brothers to sell Joseph into slavery Gen 37:26–28 B The brothers deceive Jacob into believing Joseph is dead Gen 37:29–36 X Judah and Tamar: Judah begets Perez and Zerah Gen 38 B′ Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt—he deceives his brothers Gen 39:1–44:17 A′ Judah’s speech: “Keep me in place of Benjamin” Gen 44:18–34 The order and content of the laws in Deut 24–25 are an invitation to teach the meaning and content of Genesis, primarily as it relates to the two most prominent sons (or tribes) of Israel: Joseph and Judah. The laws in 24:17–25:16 form a literary unit in five parts, from a prosodic point of view, which may be outlined as follows: 24:17– A Protecting aliens, orphans, and widows (Joseph in Egypt) 22 Limits on flogging and unmuzzled B (Joseph and Judah) 25:1–4 ox X Levirate marriage (Tamar and Judah) 25:5–10 25:11– B′ Improper intervention in a fight (Judah and Joseph) 13 (Israel in the 25:13– A′ Honest weights and measures wilderness) 16

The outer frame in this structure has two parallel laws on the protection of the poor and vulnerable (24:17–22 and 25:13–16) that are used to shape the narrative content of the story of Joseph in Gen 37 and 45–50 and God’s provision for the people of Israel in the wilderness en route to Mount Sinai (Exod 14–18). The first half of the inner frame picks up on the same theme in the law that sets limits on flogging (25:1–3), but then moves to another topic in the law on not muzzling the ox (25:4). As will be shown in the discussion below, the second half of the inner frame with the curious law on improper intervention in a fight (25:11–13) is also used to shape the narrative stories of both Judah and Joseph. Together with the central law concerning levirate marriage (25:5– 10), these three laws shape the narrative of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38) and the story of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel in the land of Egypt (Gen 39–50), with a focus on the person of Joseph and Judah. The two-part structure of the laws on marriage and war in 24:1–5 is indicated in BHS with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the end of vv 4 and 5. The break between the two subsections is also marked with the Numeruswechsel at the end of v 4, as restored from SP and LXX. Moreover, the prosodic analysis reveals that the two laws are distinct literary units. The law on the deferral of a new husband from military service in 24:5 functions as a rhythmic literary bridge, much like 23:1 in the previous chapter. From the point of view of overall structure, it completes one major unit (23:1–24:5), begins another (24:5–25:19), and belongs to both. ”,a woman“ ,אשׁה to take,” and its object“ ,לקח Phrases that combine the verb appear three times, as the outer frame in a concentric structure of repeated words and phrases, which are nested as follows: 24:1a כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה ”A “When a man takes a woman

וכתב לה ספר כריתת he shall write a bill of divorce“ B 24:1b …” ונתן בידה “and she goes forth from 24:2b– X 3a ויצאה מביתו והלכה ”… his house

וכתב לה ספר כריתת he shall write a bill of divorce“ B′ 24:3a …” ונתן בידה 24:3b– A′ “who took her as his wife …” 4a אשׁר־לקחה לו לאשׂה … “to take her again as his wife” לקחתה להיות לו לאשׁה

The outer frame in this structure moves from the original marriage, “when a man takes a woman” (v 1a), to the situation where that husband is not permitted to take the woman a second time to be his wife (vv 3b–4a). The center of this structure focuses attention on the legal situation itself, as the woman marries a second time only to find that her second husband “hates her” and wants a divorce (v 3). The inner frame in this structure is the exact repetition of a three-part clause: “and he writes her a bill of divorce and he puts it in her hand and he sends her out from his house” (vv 1 and 3). The content of the two laws in 24:1–5 itself may be outlined in a five-part concentric structure: A When a man takes a woman, he is permitted to divorce her 24:1 B If she then becomes another man’s wife 24:2 X And the new husband divorces her or dies 24:3 B The former husband cannot take her again as wife 24:4 A′ When a man takes a woman, he receives a military deferral 24:5 In this reading, the structural center remains much the same: a divorced woman, who has remarried, faces the loss of her new husband (24:3). Can she remarry her original husband, if he wants to take her back? According to the law (24:4), he cannot; however, in the story of Gen 20, which is shaped by this law, Abraham did take Sarah back from the king of Gerar—but one wonders, at what cost in terms of their subsequent relationship? Setting the permission for the man to divorce his wife in the first place (24:1) over against the law of deferral from military service, with its injunction that the man is responsible “to bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken” (24:5), the outer frame in this structure raises the question as to why the possibility of remarriage in this instance is denied. Perhaps, once again, we are dealing with a law intended primarily as a teaching device on the deterrence of divorce in the first place—somewhat like the law of the insubordinate son (21:18–21) and the woman guilty of premarital unchastity (22:13–21). A contract for remarriage of a Jewish couple in the year 124 C.E. was found in a cave at Wadi Murabbaʿat near Qumran (DJD 2:243ff.; see Tigay [1996] 222, who also cites a later such contract for remarriage in A. Gulak, ˒Otsar Ha- Shetarot [Jerusalem: Defus Ha-Poʿalim, 1926] 42, no. 37 [reference courtesy of J. C. Greenfield]). Tigay notes that Islamic law prescribes exactly the opposite of what we find here: “if a man has irrevocably divorced his wife, he may not remarry her unless she has been married in the interim. When a couple wishes to reunite, a beggar is hired to marry the woman and consort with her for one night, after which he divorces her and frees her to reunite with her husband. Wives understandably find this repulsive, and some permit a sacrifice to be offered in place of the intervening marriage” ([1996] 222, citing Quran 2:229–30, with commentary of Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur ˒an [Washington, DC: American International Printing, 1946]; Granqvist, Marriage Conditions,2:281–82; Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 244). are used as the (כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה) ”The words “when a man takes a woman primary rhetorical marker to indicate the structure of 24:1–5 and its relation to 21:11 and to 22:13–23:1, where the same expression is used as an inclusion to mark the beginning and ending of a parallel prosodic unit—what I have called the laws on marital and sexual misconduct in 22:13–29 (see also 21:11 in the law on marriage with a woman captured in war, where the expression is first introduced). Here the words are used to mark the beginning of each of the major subunits (vv 1–4 and 5) and the ending his wife whom he“ ,את־אשׁתו אשׁר־לקח :of v 5 as well, in modified chiastic form has taken.” The phrase thus appears eight times (within a seven-part concentric structure) in the sixth of the eleven weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings (21:10–25:19): 21:11 ולקחת לך לאשׁה (A Beginning of sequence (21:10–14 Beginning: marriage and sex laws B 22:13 כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה (29–22:13)

לא־יקח אישׁ את־ Beginning: marrying one’s father’s C 23:1 wife אשׁת Beginning: renovation of X 24:1 כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה (marriage (24:1–4

אשׁר־לקחה לו Beginning of inner frame within C′ 24:3 same law לאשׁה לקחתה להיות לו End of frame within same law 24:4

לאשׁה

24:5 כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה B′ Beginning: deferral of new husband את־אשׁתו אשׁר־ A′ End of sequence 24:5 לקח

The piling up of this formulaic expression in 24:1–5 indicates that we have reached the end of the larger section of laws on the seventh commandment, the prohibition of adultery. What follows in 24:6–25:16 focuses primarily on humanitarian concerns (commandments eight through ten, on theft, false witness, and coveting), within a framework on matters of “love and war” (commandments six and seven, prohibiting murder and adultery) in 24:5 (on military deferral for a new husband) and 25:17–19 (on Holy War—remember to “hate” the Amalekites). It is interesting to note how the story about Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech begins in Gen 20. After Abimelech sent and took Sarah into his household (Gen 20:2), God appeared to him in a dream with these words (20:3): “You are a dead man because the woman you have taken is another man’s wife.” The story picks up where the above sequence of formulaic expressions left off in Deut 24:5. It should be noted that the :appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (בעלת בעל) ”phrase “another man’s wife in Gen 20:3 and Deut 22:22, which repeats the law forbidding adultery at the structural center of the collection of laws on marital and sexual misconduct (22:13–23:1). These laws are framed by repetition of the formula “when a man takes a woman.” It should be which ,(הנך מת) ”noted that God’s words to Abimelech, “You are a dead man immediately precede the formulaic expression in question in Gen 20:3, are similar to the words that immediately precede the twofold repetition of the same formula in Deut ”.for the man shall die“ ,כי ימות האישׁ ,4–24:3 In the shift to Abraham at this point in the use of the laws in Deuteronomy to shape the Genesis narrative, we learn that the problems involving offspring and the increase in numbers, which are part of the promises to the fathers, were there from the beginning. The subsequent story of Abraham and Sarah, in regard to the birth of their son Isaac, is shaped by the law about exemption from military service in 24:5. Abraham did not technically divorce Sarah, nor did Abimelech consummate a marriage with her, so obviously he could not divorce her in a legal sense. Nonetheless, Abraham did set her free to the point that she was taken into Abimelech’s house as his spouse. Abimelech did subsequently “divorce” her, a second time, as it were; and in this instance Abraham “remarried” his former wife, an act, of course, contrary to the law of Moses. One gets the impression that the storyteller is taking delight in the subtle manner in which he is able to show how the fathers in Genesis appear to violate the laws in Deuteronomy. But, after all, that would be permissible, since in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the law of Moses had not yet been given. Moreover, it should be noted that Abraham’s strategem encouraged Sarah’s adultery. She has been “defiled” Deut 24:4). Carmichael notes that God declared to Abimelech that his , הֻ טַּ מָּ אָ ה) offense was that of adultery, “an abomination to Yahweh” (LNB, 257). The law of giving pleasure to a new wife in 24:5 is used to carry the story of Abraham and Sarah a significant step further. “Apart from his fear that a foreign potentate might take his wife and kill him, Abraham was also faced with the prospect that should he die he would have no heir by his chief wife Sarah” (Carmichael, LNB, 258). But God himself had promised Abraham a son by Sarah. It is the story of the birth of this son, Isaac, that is shaped by the law of military deferral in Deut 24:5. The law grants a newly married man a year’s exemption from military duty so that ושׂמח את־אשׂתואשׁר־ ) ”he should bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken“ The purpose of the original law may have been to provide the occasion for the .(לקח couple to enjoy the birth of their first child. But the narrative story of Genesis emphasizes the notion of giving pleasure to the woman. The birth of Isaac was to take place within the course of “one year,” as the following words indicate: “I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son” (Gen 18:10). Sarah’s response was shaped by the law in Deut 24:5: “After I have grown old, and my husband ,( ﬠֶ דְ ָ נ ה) ”is old, shall I have pleasure?” (Gen 18:12). The use of the word “pleasure which appears in the feminine form only here in the Hebrew Bible, points the reader to the proverbial source of ,( ﬠֵ דֶ ן)the story of creation in Gen 2–3 and the garden of Eden pleasure for the first man (Adam) in the creation of the first woman (Eve). Moreover, the story that unfolds in the life and progeny of the promised son, Isaac, is an event of parallel magnitude in God’s special creation of his own people, the children of Israel. The evidence from Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” for 24:1–5 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

24:1–3 18 + 32 = 50 24:2–3 13 + 13 = 26

(= 3 24:2–5 45 + 33 = 78 × 26) (= 23 24:3–4 30 + 19 = 49 + 26) (= 2 24:4–5 32 + 20 = 52 × 26) 24:5 13 + 10 = 23

(= 2 (= 6 24:1–5 50 + 52 = 102 × 26) × 17) (= 3 24:6–9 28 + 23 = 51 × 17)

(= 9 24:1–9 78 (= 3 × 26) + 75 = 153 × 17)

In the numerical composition of the text it appears that the primary literary unit is 24:1– 9, which includes five laws. The total number of words in these nine verses comes to 153 (= 9 × 17), which is also the sum of the digits 1 through 17. Within these verses there are 78 (= 3 × 26) words before ʾatnāḥ. This unit is divided in two main parts: vv 1–5, with its total of 102 (= 6 × 17) words, in which there are 52 (= 2 × 26) words after ʾatnāḥ; and vv 6–9, with its total of 51 (= 3 × 17) words, in which there are 23 words after ʾatnāḥ. Within vv 1–5 there are a series of overlapping structures based on the divine-name number 26 and the numbers 32 and 23 (the two ways of counting the .(”glory“ ,כבוד numerical value of

Comment as “a naked thing” (BDB, 789; see ערות דבר I have translated the expression 4–1 the Comment on 23:15). It is possible to interpret the phrase as something like “pudenda exposed” in an attempt to draw the reader’s attention to the riddle-like quality of the words. Since these words in 23:15 are used to form an inclusion with “any bad thing” it is clear that the interpretation “something indecent, obnoxious, or ,(כל דבר רע) shameful” is not far off the mark as an interpretive comment. Such a rendering does not communicate the terse quality of the original Hebrew expression, however, which defies ”,to be naked“ ,ערה comes from the root ערוה concrete objective definition. The word and is commonly used with the meaning “nakedness” or “genitals” (particularly of a Though most .ערוה woman). Incest is described in Leviticus as uncovering a relative’s translators and commentators agree that the phrase refers to sexually indecent behavior, it is clear that it does not mean adultery, because the biblical punishment for adultery is execution. The phrase is taken here as an idiom, perhaps analogous to the English expression “caught with one’s pants down.” The “naked thing” here is essentially the woman’s genitals (cf. also Lam 1:8, of the personified city of Jerusalem). The interpretation “pudenda exposed” attempts to convey the idiomatic quality of the phrase in a manner that raises questions for the reader rather than simply supplying a definitive answer. The phrase means that the issue at hand, whatever it is, is out in the open for all to see—the woman “is caught with her pudenda exposed.” was written by the husband. The (ספר כריתה) ”As stated here, “a bill of divorce means literally “severance.” It is possible that the term originally referred כריתה term to the symbolic act of cutting the wife’s hem or garment, which is the ceremonial act of divorce in ancient Mesopotamia, according to Tigay ([1996] 221–22). The phrase “she refers to the woman in relation to her first husband and not (הטמאה) ”has been defiled a general state brought about by her remarriage. The reference to “an abomination before YHWH” can be interpreted in two ways, as Mayes has observed ([1981] 323): either the act of remarriage itself (with Craigie, [1976] 305, who compares the situation with the law on adultery in Lev 18:20), or the woman herself. It is the action of the woman that is “an abomination to YHWH,” rather than the effect of that action on the land (cf. Jer 3:1). On the relation between the law here and its parallel in Jer 3:1–5, see Hobbes, ZAW 86 (1974) 23–29. refers to one who has never been (אשׁה חדשׁה) ”The phrase “a new wife 5 married, or to a second marriage, but not to one’s ex-wife. Otherwise some men might seek to gain deferral from military service by divorcing and remarrying their wives. The man is to “remain at home one year,” presumably to conceive a child. According to bring happiness,” could also be translated “gratify” in the sense“ , ְ ו שִׂ מַּ ח Tigay Hebrew of giving the wife conjugal pleasure ([1996] 223). The concern for the woman’s feelings is also expressed in 21:10–14 (marriage with a woman captured in war). See also the earlier law on military deferral in the context of preparing the army for battle (20:6–8). which would mean “he shall have happiness with his , ְ ו שָׂ מַ ח Some Hebrew texts read bride,” in the sense that the two rejoice equally, or that he rejoices over her. Craigie cited a parallel in the Ugaritic texts (CTA14.II.100–102 = UT Krt 100–102) where the practice was suspended because war was being undertaken to acquire a new wife for King Keret ([1976] 306 n. 5).

Explanation The biblical teaching on divorce has been a matter of debate in times past as well as in current discussions within both the church and the synagogue. In short, as R. Wall has put it, “Matthew’s exception clause becomes an ironical reminder that one’s character is formed by a God whose will is for indissoluble monogamy (19:6). Clearly, the sum of the synoptic tradition argues that Jesus’ teaching intended to create among his disciples an intolerance for divorce even though Jewish law tolerated it” (ABD 2:218). It is important to note that there are no laws on divorce as such in the Torah. Some would argue that such laws were common knowledge in ancient Israel, and that the law here presupposes such divorce proceedings as normal legal action in that society. Though this is probably true, it seems that the issue at hand is not so much the matter of divorce per se as it is the meaning of marriage, with a profound reflection on “the great that is present wherever divorce is experienced. Divorce wreaks havoc (דבר רע) ”evil in the lives of all concerned. The original intent of the Torah in matters concerning marriage is that of an inviolable union. The man’s responsibility in this relationship is “to bring happiness to the woman he has taken” (24:5); but in some instances this may not be possible. The law as stated in 24:1–5 and expanded in the narrative of Gen 20 recognizes the consequences of divorce for all concerned, because of its finality. Divorce is a form of death, the only difference being the simple fact that the corpses are still walking around! Life presents moments of ultimate decision, and the matter of divorce is one of those “moments.” Divorce provides an ending, without the possibility of returning to what may have been, at least within the limitations of life in this present world. The matter is a bit like the profound story of the “man of God” in 1 Kgs 13 killed by the lion of Judah, who stood guard over his corpse without mauling the body. The man died because he ate bread and drank water in Bethel, contrary to what God had demanded of him. But God also commanded him not to “return by the way that you came” (1 Kgs 13:9). There is a reason why the laws of Deuteronomy have linked the subjects of “love and death” (i.e., marriage and war). To go home by a different way in the matter of remarriage means to step out into the unknown, into unfamiliar territory, on a new journey of faith. To attempt to go home by the way that one has come is contrary to the law of 24:1–4, because in almost all cases it is the way of death itself. The time to work through marital differences is before divorce, not in a second marriage to a former spouse.

3–4. Taking a Millstone in Pledge and Theft of a Fellow Israelite (24:6–7) Bibliography

Alt, A. “Zu hit ˓ammer.” VT 2 (1952) 153–59. Amiran, R. “The Millstone and the Potter’s Wheel.” EI 4 (1956) 46–49 (Heb.). Baudissin, W. W. G. “Die alttestamentliche Religion und die Armen.” Preussische Jahrbücher 149 (1912) 193–231. Cathcart, K. J. “Trkb qm in the Arad Ostracon and Biblical HebrewRekeb, ‘Upper Millstone.’ ” VT 19 (1969) 121–23. Daube, D. “To Be Found Doing Wrong.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 3–13, esp. 4–10. David, M. “Deux anciens termes bibliques pour le gage.” OTS 2 (1943) 79–86. Dietrich, W. “… den Arment das Evangelium zu Verkünden.” TZ 41 (1985) 31–43. Eichler, B. L. Indenture at Nuzi. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1973. 88–89. ———. “Loan.” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Ed. P. Achtemeier. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. 571–72.Falk, Z. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1964. 101. Finet, A. “Le ‘gage’ et la ‘sujétion’ (nipûtum et kiššatum) dans les textes de Mari et le Code de Hammurabi.” Akkadica 8 (1978) 12–18. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SLR 19 (1967) 953.Greenberg, M. “Mankind, Israel and the Nations.” 1971. 15–40, esp. 29. Lieberman, S. “[Grain] Mills and Those Who Work Them.” Tarbiz 50 (1980/81) 126–35 (Heb.). Lipin ski, E. “Sale, Transfer and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology.” In Gesellschaft und Kultur in alten Vorderasien. Ed. H. Klengel. SGKAO 15. Berlin: Du לא־תחסם שור בדישו .Akademie-Verlag, 1982. 173–85. Lisowsky, G. “Dtn 25, 4 Sollst dem Rind bei seinem Dreschen Nicht das Maul verbinden: In religionsgeschichtlicher und ethischer Sicht erläutert.” In FS L. Rost. 1967. 144–52. Mendelsohn, I. “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship (1 Sam 8:4–17) in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit.” BASOR 143 (1956) 17–22, esp. 20–22. Milgrom, J. Cult and Conscience. 1976. 94– 104. Moritz, L. A. Grain-mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. London: Oxford UP, 1958. Neufeld, E. “Inalienability of Mobile and Immobile Pledges in the Laws of the Bible.” RIDA 9 (1962) 33–44. ———. “Ius redemptionis in Ancient Hebrew Law.” RIDA 8 (1961) 29–40. Richardson, H. N. “Mill, Millstone.” IDB 3:380–81 (with photo). Stager, L.“The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985) 12–15. Tigay, J. H. “Some Archaeological Notes on Deuteronomy.” In FS J. Milgrom. 1995. 373–80, esp. 374– 76. Toorn, K. van der. “Judges xvi 21 in the Light of the Akkadian Sources.” VT 36 (1986) 248–53. ———. “Mill, Millstone.” ABD 4:831–32.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Taking a Millstone as Distrained Property [6:6]

6 No one shall take in pledge a handmill / 10 1 or an upper millstone // 5 1 2 10 ס // for that would be taking a life / in pledge

Theft of a Fellow Israelite

7 When a man is found / stealing a person from his brothers / 20 2_ from the sons of Israel / 9 1 and he treats him as merchandise / and he sells him // 13 2 Then that thief \ shall die / 11 1 and you shall purge the evil / from your midst // 13 2_

Notes

,יחבל you shall take in pledge,” for MT“ ,(תחבל =) a. LXX reads ἐνεχυράσεις.6 “he shall take in pledge.” ”.he treats) him)“ ,בּוֹ he treats) her,” for MT)“ , בָּ הּ a. Sebire reads.7

7.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 7.c. Reading 2 pl. with LXX and Syr. as lectio difficilior (cf. Note 24:4.c), which is another instance of the so-called Numeruswechsel. This might help to explain the absence of the sĕtûmāʾ paragraph marker in MT as redundant.

Form/Structure/Setting As shown in the previous section, 24:5 functions as a bridge, serving as the conclusion to 23:2–24:5 and the introduction to what follows in 24:5–25:19. The six laws in 24:5–13 are closely connected in terms of their prosodic structure, which may be outlined in five rhythmic units: A Deferral of a new husband from military service [6:6] 24:5 B On taking ruinous action against a fellow Israelite [6:6] 24:6–7 X Dealing with “leprosy” [6:6] 24:8–9 B′ Entering your neighbor’s house to take a pledge [6:6] 24:10–11 A′ Returning a poor man’s pledge at sundown [6:6] 24:12–13

Each of the five parts in this structure has twelve syntactic accentual stress units, which may be scanned in identical 6:6 rhythmic units. To do this, however, it should be noted that the phenomenon of enjambment occurs in vv 6–7, in which the thought runs across the verse division in a somewhat surprising manner. See further below. The center of the above structure focuses attention on the enigmatic law on dealing with “leprosy” (vv 8–9). The inner frame is made up of parallel laws on matters pertaining to ruinous action against a fellow Israelite by “stealing a person” (vv 6–7), and by entering a neighbor’s house to take his pledge on a loan (vv 10–13). The outer frame moves from one specific instance of showing humanitarian concern to another: from deferral of a new husband from military service (v 5) to the return of a neighbor’s pledge at sundown (vv 12–13). The seven laws on ruinous action against a fellow Israelite in 24:6–22 may be outlined in a menorah pattern as well, to form another “wheel within a wheel” in the architectural design of the laws in Deuteronomy: A Taking a millstone as pledge (distrained property) 24:6 B Theft of a fellow Israelite (kidnapping) 24:7 C Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 X Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 C′ Timely payment of wages 24:14–15 B′ Transgenerational punishment 24:16 A′ Protecting aliens, the fatherless, and widows 24:17–22 The framework in this structure moves from a specific law on the taking of distrained property (a millstone, v 6), to another more detailed law on the subject of distrained property in the structural center (vv 10–13), to a general statement of concern for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society (vv17–22). The outermost pair of laws within this framework moves from a law on the theft of a fellow Israelite (kidnapping, v 7) to a law prohibiting transgenerational punishment (v 16). The inmost pair of laws concern the matter of “leprosy” (vv 8–9) and the timely payment of wages due (vv 14– 15). Another way of looking at the structure of the laws in 24:5–25:19 is to outline the whole collection in a concentric structural design: A Deferral of a new husband from military service 24:5 B Taking a millstone as pledge 24:6 C Theft of a fellow Israelite (kidnapping) 24:7 D Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 E Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 F Timely payment of wages 24:14–15 G Transgenerational punishment 24:16 X Protecting aliens, the fatherless, and widows 24:17–18 G′ Gleanings for the poor 24:19–22 F′ Limits on flogging 25:1–3 E′ Not muzzling the ox 25:4 D′ Levirate marriage 25:5–10 C′ Immodest intervention in a fight 25:11–13 B′ Honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remembering the Amalekite aggression 25:17–19 The outer frame in this structure moves from a law on warfare, which grants military deferral (24:5), to the concluding injunction to hate the Amalekites because of their enmity in the first war the people of Israel faced when they went out from the land of Egypt (25:17–19). Within this framework are a series of twelve laws, arranged so as to place the summary law on protecting the symbolic trio of poor and vulnerable folk (resident alien, orphan, and widow) in the structural center (24:17–22). All the other laws in 24:6–25:16, which are framed by the two laws on matters of warfare, explore humanitarian issues that pertain primarily to commandments eight through ten (prohibition of theft, false witnesses, and coveting). The two laws in 24:6–7 are of unequal length, and the boundary between them is marked with a sĕtûmāʾ paragraph marker after v 6; but there is no such marker at the end of v 7. Indeed, the space left in BHS is conjecture on the part of the editor. No space was left at this point in L, though theNumeruswechsel is present, as restored from LXX and Syr. In light of the prosodic analysis, the clause at the beginning of v 7 could be read in two different ways. The first reading is determined by the sĕtûmāʾmarker that divides the two verses into separate literary units and two distinct laws. A second reading, however, is also possible, and indeed is dictated by the rhythmic structure of the whole. life,” ties the clause to what precedes by the phenomenon“ ,נפשׁ Repetition of the word of enjambment. The matter of “taking a life in pledge” (v 6) is explained as “stealing a person [life] from his brothers” (v 7). The rhythmic unit that follows, then, begins with further definition in terms of the meaning of “his brothers,” namely the “sons of Israel” who “treat him as merchandise and sell him.” The allusion to the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis is transparent, as Carmichael has observed (LNB, 261–62). See further below. It is interesting to note that the proverblike wording of the law on the taking of a millstone as a pledge in 24:6 also lends itself to a concentric reading, in which the :pledge,” functions as an inclusion“ ,חבל term

לא־יחבל ”A “He shall not take in pledge

רחים ”B “a mill

ורכב ”X “or an upper millstone

כי־נפשׁ ”B′ “for that would be taking a life

הוא חבל ”A′ “in pledge

in the center of this structure that would (רכב) ”It is the portable upper millstone “rider be taken away in pledge by the creditor. The inner frame states the issue in the symbolic language of a proverb: the mill(stone) in the home is a matter of life and death, so do not take it in pledge. To take an essential household item as collateral in order to pressure repayment of a loan is regarded as so oppressive that it is equivalent to “taking a life in pledge.” Referring to Sarah’s exclusion of Hagar and Ishmael from the family (Gen 21), Carmichael says: “It is … accurate to paraphrase Abraham’s agreement to Sarah’s request by stating that it constituted his promise to give Isaac the prime inheritance because she had granted him the benefit of this son. By so agreeing, a life (Ishmael’s and perhaps Hagar’s too) was literally at stake” (LNB, 260). The illustration that was selected to accompany Richardson’s article, “Mill, Millstone” (IDB 3:380), of a statuette of a woman grinding grain with a millstone, from Gizeh, is essentially a portrait of Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid of Sarah; that would have been one of her daily tasks. Taking “a mill or an upper millstone” in pledge could easily lead to starvation within a family. Note also how the issue of starvation itself arises in the story. It is a short step from the idea of “taking a life in pledge” of the previous law to that of forcibly acquiring a person, enslaving them, or selling them into slavery. It is also a short step so far as the narrative in Genesis is concerned to move ahead to the selling of Joseph into slavery in Gen 37:26–28. Of all the connections between a specific law in Deuteronomy and its narrative counterpart in Genesis, this is the most transparent. The sale of Joseph to Ishmaelites connects this law with the previous one and its links with Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. “Oppression characterizes each story. Hagar and Ishmael were cast out from their home and family; so too was Joseph. Each time the cruelty arose within the family; each time material gain was involved. Sarah acquired the prime inheritance for Isaac, and Joseph’s brothers received money from the Ishmaelites” (Carmichael,LNB, 262). Moreover, in contrast with Isaac, when his mother Sarah ousted his older brother, Ishmael, Judah lost out in his attempts to oust his younger brother Joseph from his position as his father’s favorite son (Gen 37:26; 38; 49:8–12). ”,to treat (someone) as merchandise“ ,התעמר It should be noted that the term occurs only here and in the law legislating against the bad treatment of a captive woman (21:10–14), linked to Laban’s rebuke of Jacob for running off with his two daughters. “From Laban’s perspective Jacob had wrongfully removed them (‘like captives of the sword’) from their homeland, Aram (Gen 31:25–50). Joseph too was removed from his homeland” (Carmichael, LNB, 262). Once again, it is interesting to read the law in 24:7 itself as a concentric structure, which may be outlined as follows: A If a man is found stealing one of his brothers B And he treats him as merchandise X And he sells him B′ That thief shall die A′ Purge the evil from your midst The focus of the law is that a man has stolen one of his brothers, whom he has sold into slavery. That evil must be purged “from your midst.” If a man treats his brother as merchandise and sells him, that man must die.

Comment

a necessary item in food ,(רחים ורכב) ”A handmill or an upper millstone“ 6 preparation, was made of basalt or other hard stone able to withstand constant rubbing (for photo see ANEP, no. 149; and IDB 3:380 [Egyptian woman using a mill]). Millstone sets were used to make flour for bread and thus were part of the necessary “kitchen utensils” in every home. To dispossess a family of its grain mill would amount to taking away its means of sustenance. It would appear that creditors took only the upper stone, which usually weighed about four or five pounds (Tigay [1996] 223; cf. refers to distraint to compel (חבל) ”idem, FS J. Milgrom, 374–76). To “take in pledge repayment of a loan. The phrase “taking a life” means that the item is a necessary means of survival. “Items necessary for producing food … were often called ‘life’ in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and postbiblical Jewish literature” (Tigay [1996] 224, who gives further references). 7 According to Craigie ([1976] 307), the law here is essentially a restatement of the eighth commandment in which the crime of “stealing” is in fact kidnapping (5:19). Unlike its parallel in Exod 21:16, which forbids kidnapping in general, the law here forbids a man from “stealing a person from his brothers from the sons of Israel.” The interpretation of the law in terms of the story of the sale of Joseph by his brothers helps as “he treats him as והתעמר to explain this anomalous feature. On the meaning of merchandise,” see the Comment on 21:14. The term appears in the Hebrew Bible only in these two places, where the Targums interpret it in this manner. The penalty is severe—“that thief shall die”—because the crime is essentially that of “social murder,” to use the words of Craigie ([1976] 307). The same penalty applies in the Code of Hammurabi (ANET, 166, §14).

Explanation All too often throughout history wealth has been garnered at the expense of others, sometimes by exploitation that reduces people to subsistence levels of living and premature death. In the world of antiquity, the millstone was an absolute necessity of life. It was needed daily to reduce grain to groats, meal, or flour. The sound of the grinding of the millstones was as characteristic of the common home as the light of the lamp (Jer 25:10). To dispossess a family of their millstone was to take from them the means of sustenance. Thus the law declares that there are limits to what a person may take from another in payment for a loan that is due. No matter what the circumstances may be, we do not have the moral right to take from another person their means of livelihood, however much they may owe us for loans made in times past. In like manner, no one has the right to “steal a person [life]” by treating a fellow human being as merchandise. Though the text here refers directly to the circumstance of kidnapping, the principle applies to the matter of selling someone into slavery as well. In either case the culprit was condemned to death in ancient Israel. We do well to remember that there are many ways to “enslave” a fellow human being. Those who traffic in addicting drugs, including tobacco and alcoholic beverages, or encourage other addictions such as gambling, pornography, and illicit sex, are often guilty of stealing the life of a fellow human being. In biblical law there is no comparison between those who would steal livestock, or property of any sort, and those who would “steal”a human life. The punishment for the latter was death.

5. Dealing with “Leprosy” (24:8–9) Bibliography

Caplice, R. “An Apotropaion against Fungus.” JNES 33 (1974) 345–49. Dols, M. W. “The Leper in Medieval Islamic Society.” Speculum 58 (1983) 891–916.———. “Leprosy in Medieval Arabic Medicine.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 36 (1979) 314–33. Douglas, M. Purity and Danger. New York: Praeger, 1966. Görg, M. “ ‘Ausschlag’ an Häusern: Zu einem problematischen Lexem in Lev 14, 37.” BN 14 (1981) 20–25. Hulse, E. V. “The Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible.” PEQ 107 (1975) 87–105. Kinnier-Wilson, J. “Leprosy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” RA 60 (1966) 47–58. ———. “Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon. Ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. 337–65. Lowe, J. “Comments on the History of Leprosy.” Leprosy Review 18 (1947) 54–64. Meier, S. “House Fungus: Mesopotamia and Israel.” RB 96 (1989) 184–92. Moller-Christensen, V. “Evidence of Leprosy in Earlier People.” In Diseases in Antiquity. Ed. D. Brothwell and A. T. Sandison. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas, 1967. 295– 306. Pilch, J. J. “Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism.” BTB 11 (1981) 108–13. Sawyer, J. F. A. “A Note on the Etymology of Ṣara˓at.” VT 26 (1976) 241–45. Seidl, T. Tora für den “Aussatz”-Fall: Literarische Schichten und syntaktische Strukturen in Levitikus 13 und 14. ATSAT 18. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982. Skinsnes, O. K. “Leprosy in Society.” Leprosy Review 35 (1964) 21–35, 106–22, 175–82. Sussman, M.“Diseases in the Bible and the Talmud.” In Diseases in Antiquity. Ed. D. Brothwell and A. T. Sandison. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas, 1967. 209–21. Wilkinson, J.“Leprosy and Leviticus: A Problem of Semantics and Translation.” SJT 31 (1978) 153–66. ———. “Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification.” SJT 30 (1977) 153–69. Wright, D. P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Wright, D. P., and Jones, R. N. “Leprosy.” ABD 4:277–82.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Dealing with “Leprosy” [6:6]

8 Be careful in an attack of leprosy / 12 1 to be very diligent \ indeed to do // 11 1 according to all they shall teach you / 11 1 (Namely) the Levitical priests / 10 1 _2 15 ס // just as I commanded them / you shall be careful to do 9 Remember / what he did / 12 2 (what) YHWH your God (did) / to Miriam // 13 2 _2 13 ס // in the way / in your going out from Egypt

Notes

8.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 8.b. Two Heb. MSS, SP, and LXX omit waw-conj., which is read here as emphatic (M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150, AB 17A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970] 400– 402).

Prosodic analysis favors .כל the Torah”; Syr. omits“ ,התורה c. SP and LXX add.8 MT.

”.the “ ,הלוים and the Levites,” for MT“ ,והלוים d. Syr. reads.8

”.in your [pl.] going out“ ,בצאתכם for MT בצאתך .a-a. Vg. reads 2 sg.9

Form/Structure/Setting The law on leprosy in 24:8–9 is enigmatic because of its brevity. The people are commanded to “be careful in an attack of leprosy to be very diligent indeed to do according to all [the Levitical priests] shall teach you” (v 8); but the details of that teaching are not spelled out. Instead the subject shifts abruptly to what appears at first glance to be another law commanding the people to “remember what … YHWH your God (did) to Miriam in the way in your going out from Egypt” (v 9), for the two verses are separated by the sĕtûmāʾ paragraph marker. Knowledge of the detailed teaching on the subject of “leprosy,” as preserved in Lev 13–14, is assumed, as is the incident of Miriam challenging Moses’ unique relation to God in Num 12 and her punishment as she became “leprous, as white as snow” (Num 12:9). When the law on leprosy (24:8–9) is examined in its larger context within Deut 24, its function becomes evident as a “riddle at the middle” in the following concentric structure: A Deferral of a new husband from military service 24:5 B Taking a millstone and theft of a fellow Israelite 24:6–7 X Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 B′ Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 A′ Three laws on protecting the poor and vulnerable 24:14–22 The inner frame in this structure moves from a specific law on the matter of taking a millstone as distrained property, which is structurally tied to the law on kidnapping (24:6–7), to a more general law on taking and holding distrained property from a poor debtor (24:10–13). The outer frame is another example of the familiar three-plus-one pattern in Jungian psychology, with three laws on protecting the poor and vulnerable in society (24:14–22) set over against a single law granting military deferral to a new husband (24:5). The center of this structure (24:8–9) raises the question as to the meaning and significance of the “riddle at the middle.” The sĕtûmāʾ layout markers as given in BHS are misleading. There is no space after v 7 in L, though there is space at the end of one line and the beginning of the next to mark the end of v 8 (as is the case at the end of vv 6 and 13). The frequency of the Numeruswechsel, which appears four times in three verses (at the end of vv 7 and 8, and twice in v 9), suggests that we are dealing here with a pivotal passage in terms of prosodic structure. A concentric reading of the law in question (vv 8–9) is instructive, as the following outline indicates: A Be careful in an attack of leprosy B Be very diligent indeed to do X According to all that the Levitical priests shall teach you B′ As I commanded them, you shall be careful to do A′ Remember what God did to Miriam after you left Egypt The teaching of the Levitical priests is central in this reading and the people are instructed to follow that teaching, in any “attack of leprosy.” In a symbolic sense, leprosy is associated here with God’s punishment of those who fail to recognize proper authority. In the larger concentric structure of the laws of 24:5–25:19 taken as a whole, the text on the “leprosy” of Miriam is to be read over against the law on the woman who intervenes inappropriately in a fight (25:11–12). In that instance we are also dealing with a transitional law from a literary point of view, in which the narrative is moving to a law associated with Joseph (25:13–16, honest weights and measures), whereas in the present context the narrative is moving in the opposite direction: from a law associated with Joseph (24:7, the theft of a fellow Israelite). The issue at hand appears to be the matter of Moses’ authority over the Levitical priests. In the narrative of Num 12, Aaron was the first to recant and acknowledge that Moses was God’s appointed leader. Aaron was also the one who requested that Miriam be healed. In short, “Moses emerges as the key authority in the incident, and in that Aaron as the head of the Levitical priests is made to recognize this, the lawgiver infers that their instructions were the ones to be followed in curing leprosy” (Carmichael, LNB, 264). Labuschagne’s study of the use of the divine-name numbers in 24:8–9, within the larger context of 24:1–9, may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

13 13 26 24:8–9 + = 50 52 102 24:1–5 + (= 2 × 26) = (= 6 × 17) 24:6–9 28 23 51 (= 3 × 17) + = 24:7–9 24 19 43 (= 17 + 26) + = 78 75 153 24:1–9 (= 3 × 26) + = (= 9 × 17) The law dealing with “leprosy” in 24:8–9 is a single literary subunit made up of 26 words. It is closely related to what precedes and follows in the subunit 24:7–9, with its 43 (= 17 + 26) words. The larger literary context is 24:1–9, with 78 (= 3 × 26) words before ʾatnāḥ and its total of 153 (= 9 × 17) words, which is also the sum of the digits 1 through 17.

Comment

translated “leprosy” here, describes a rather wide range of conditions ,צרעת 8 referred to in the Bible—conditions on the skin, in cloth fabric, and on walls. In reference to skin disease, the term does not necessarily refer to leprosy (Hansen’s disease) as defined by modern medicine. Lev 13–14contains instructions for the priests, who observed and diagnosed the symptoms. “The exhortation at this point assumes that the legislation on leprosy is known to the audience, and Moses simply exhorts the people to be diligent in their observation of that legislation” (Craigie [1976] 308). The individual is instructed “to do according to all [the Levitical priests] shall teach you.” .translated here as “Levitical priests,” see the Commenton 18:1–2 ,הכהנים הלוים On 9 The instruction to “remember what … YHWH … (did) to Miriam” calls attention to the incident related in Num 12:10–15. Milgrom has noted that Miriam received special treatment in this instance, since she was isolated only one week instead of two (Numbers [1990] 98). The point seems to be “that nobody is immune, so that people wouldn’t assume ‘it can’t happen to me’ and fail to consult a priest regarding a potentially ‘leprous’ skin affliction” (Tigay [1996] 225). Explanation The leprosy of Miriam was inflicted by God for her hubris in challenging Moses’ unique role in ancient Israel as covenant mediator and leader of the people. It should be noted that Miriam was also a spiritual leader (see Exod 15:20; Mic 6:4). She is one of Exod , נביאה) ”five women in the Hebrew Bible who are designated as a “prophetess 15:20), the others being Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22), the wife of Isaiah (Isa 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh 6:14). In spite of her rank and character as presented in the book of Exodus, Miriam was excluded from the camp for seven days and restored only when she submitted to the authority of Moses. Though we cannot identify the precise nature of the skin disease with which Miriam was afflicted, it is clear that her “leprosy” was a divine punishment that brought pollution into the midst of God’s people. She was ritually unclean and had to undergo certain rites of purification before she could resume her place in that community. There is a significant lesson here for anyone who would presume to challenge the role of a leader God has raised up within a given community. Such action is sinful and brings pollution in its wake that must be dealt with. No one in leadership, however high the rank or position, is immune from the danger of committing Miriam’s sin of hubris. When such a matter occurs, the law is clear: God himself will bring punishment in the form of “leprosy”—a symbolic way of saying that a contaminating disease will become evident on that person, and that disease must be dealt with according to God’s own instructions. The afflicted person is to be excluded from the “camp” for a season, until such time as the proper rites of purification have removed the pollution, and the guilty party submits once again to proper authority under God.

6. Taking and Holding Distrained Property (24:10– 13) Bibliography

Baudissin, W. W. G. “Die alttestmentliche Religion und die Armen.” Preussische Jahrbücher 149 (1912) 193–231. Botterweck, G. J. “Die soziale Kritik des Propheten Amos.” In FS J. Höffner. 1971. 39–58. Braulik, G. “Die Enstehung der Rechtfertigungslehre in den Bearbeitungsschichten des Buches Deuteronomium.”TP 64 (1989) 321–33, esp. 140– 42. Carmichael, C. M. LNB. 263–64. Cazelles, H. “De l’idéologie royale.” In FS T. H. Gaster. 1973. 59–73. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 33–34. David, M. “Deux anciens termes bibliques pour le gage.” OTS 2 (1943) 79–86. Finet, A. “Le ‘gage’ et la ‘sujétion’ (nipûtum et kiššatum) dans les textes de Mari et le Code de Hammurabi.” Akkadica 8 (1978) 12–18. Kippenberg, H. G. Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Jud äa. 2nd ed. SUNT 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. 27. Lewy, I. “Dating of Covenant Code Sections on Humaneness and Righteousness (Ex xxii 20–26; xxiii 1–9).” VT 7 (1957) 322–26. Milgrom, J. Cult and Conscience. 1976. 102–4. Naveh, J. “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C.” IEJ10 (1960) 129–39. Neufeld, E. “Inalienability of Mobile and Immobile Pledges in the Laws of the Bible.” RIDA 9 (1962) 33–47. ———. “The Rate of Interest and the Text of Nehemiah 5.11.” JQR 44 (1953/54) 194– 204. Ploeg, J. van der. “Les pauvres d’Israel et leur piété.” OTS 7 (1950) 236–70. Tigay, J. Empirical Models for . Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. 168. ———. “A Talmudic Parallel to the Petition from Yavneh-Yam.” In Minḥah le- Naḥum: FS N. Sarna. Ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane. JSOTSup 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. 328–33. Vogt, E. “Ostracon Hebraicum saec. 7 A.C.” Bib 41 (1960) 183–84. Weil, H. M. “Gage et cautionnement dans la Bible.” AHDO 2 (1938) 171–241.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Taking and Holding Distrained Property [(6:6):(6:6)]

10 When you make a loan to your neighbor | a loan of any sort // 14 2 you shall not enter his house / to take his pledge // 20 2 11 outside / you shall stand // 7 2_ And the man / to whom / you make the loan / 15 3 he shall bring to you / the pledge / outside // 18 3_ 12 And if he is / a poor man // 10 2 you shall not sleep / in his pledge // 10 2 13 You shall surely return the pledge to him / 15 1 when the sun goes down / 6 1_ That he may sleep in his garment / and he shall bless you // 17 2 and it shall be counted as righteousness / for you / 11 2 _2 12 ס // before / YHWH your God

Notes

you make a loan,” with no“ ,תשׁה for MT תשׁא a-a. One Heb. MS and SP read.10 change in meaning.

10.b. Reading disj. accent ṭip̱ ḥāʾ here with most Heb. MSS and printed editions, including Letteris.

you make a loan,” with“ ,תשׁה for MT תשׁא a-a. Two Heb. MSS and SP read.11 no change in meaning.

he shall bring,” with no change in“ ,יוציא for MT יוצא b-b. DSS and SP read.11 meaning.

the pledge,” with no“ ,העבוט for MT העבט a. Many Heb. MSS and DSS read.13 change in meaning.

in his garment,” with no change in“ , בְּ שַׂ לְ מָ ת וֹ for MT בְ שִׂ מְ לָ ת וֹ b. SP reads.13 meaning.

.righteousness,” see 6:25“ ,צדקה c. On a parallel use of.13

Form/Structure/Setting As noted in the previous section of this commentary, the laws on taking and holding distrained property in Deut 24 are in two parts (24:6, on taking a millstone in pledge; and 24:10–13), which form a frame around the law dealing with “leprosy” (24:8–9). Another way of looking at the function of24:10–13 within the structure of Deut 24 is to outline the whole, in relation to the corresponding narrative stories in Genesis, within a menorah pattern: A Taking a millstone as pledge (Isaac and Ishmael) 24:6 (Joseph and B Theft of a fellow Israelite 24:7 brothers) (Miriam [and C Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 Moses]) Taking and holding distrained (Isaac and 24:10– X property Rebekah) 13 24:14– C′ Timely payment of wages (Jacob and Laban) 15 Transgenerational punishment (Hamor and B′ 24:16 forbidden Shechem) 24:17– A′ Protecting aliens, orphans, and widows (Joseph in Egypt) 22

The framework in this structure moves from a specific law on taking a millstone in pledge (24:6), to a more general law on the taking of distrained property in the center (vv 10–13), and back to a specific law on the taking of a widow’s garment in pledge at the end (vv 17–22). When one examines the narrative stories in Genesis that are shaped by these three laws, the story begins with the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael, as sons of Abraham, concerning who will be the primary heir (Gen 21:9–12), to the marriage between Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24, with a flashback to God’s covenant with Abraham in 15:5–21), and concludes with the expanded story of Isaac’s grandson Joseph in Egypt (Gen 37–47). Within this framework, the first pair of laws moves from that of kidnapping (Deut 24:7) to the prohibition of transgenerational punishment (24:16). In this instance the corresponding narrative stories are the sale of Joseph into slavery by his brothers (Gen 37:26–28) and the plight of the Canaanite king Hamor and his son Shechem (Gen 34). The next frame moves from the law on leprosy (Deut 24:8– 9) to the law on timely payment of wages (24:14–15). The corresponding narratives here are the stories about Miriam’s sin (Num 12:1–14) and Jacob as the hired servant of Laban (Gen 31:4–42). The boundaries of the law on taking and holding distrained property in Deut 24:10– 13 are marked with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the end of vv 9and 13. The key words in pledge,” which appears four times here and nowhere“ ,עבוט this passage are the noun outside.” These terms appear nested in a“ ,חוץelse in the Hebrew Bible, and the word concentric structure:

לא־תבא … לעבט you shall not enter … to take his“ A 24:10b pledge” עבטו 24:11a בחוץ תעמד ”B “outside you shall stand

יוציא אליך את־ the man … shall bring to you“ X 24:11b the pledge” העבוט

24:11c החוצה ”B′ “outside

24:12b לא תשׁכב בעבטו ”A′ “you shall not sleep in his pledge

השׁב תשׁיב לו את־ you shall surely return the pledge to“ 24:13a him” העבוט

“that he may sleep in his garment” 24:13b ושׁכב בשׂלמתו

The structure focuses on the moment when the man to whom the loan is made brings forth the pledge outside (v 11b). In the outer frame, the man who made the loan is instructed not to enter “his house” (v 10b) and not to sleep in his pledge, but to return it at sundown so that “he may sleep in his garment” (v 13). The inner frame focuses on the place where the man who made the loan is to stand, namely, “outside” (v 11a, c). The concluding section of the above structure may in turn be outlined in concentric :( עבוט) ”fashion to show further nesting of the key word “pledge

24:12b לא תשׁכב בעבטו ”A “you shall not sleep in his pledge

24:13a השׁב תשׁיב לו ”B “you shall surely return to him

24:13b את־העבוט ”X “the pledge

24:13c כבא השׁמשׁ ”B′ “when the sun goes down

24:13d ושׁכב בשׂלמתו ”A′ “that he may sleep in his garment

The center of this structure focuses attention on the “pledge” itself. The inner frame makes the command explicit: you shall surely return it to the man at sundown (v 13). In the outer frame we see that the man who made the loan is not to sleep in “his pledge” (v 12b) but to return it so that the other man may sleep in “his garment” (v 13d). The law on taking and holding distrained property in 24:10–13 may be outlined as follows:

A Do not enter your neighbor’s house to take his pledge 24:10 B Outside you shall stand, and he shall bring it to you outside 24:11 X If he is a “poor man,” you shall not sleep in his pledge 24:12 B′ You shall surely return the pledge when the sun goes down 24:13a A′ It shall be counted righteousness for you before God 24:13b In this reading, the focus of the law is the prohibition of sleeping in the pledge of a poor man (v 12). By refusing to enter a neighbor’s house to take his pledge (v 10), the individual receives “righteousness” before God (v 13b). The inner frame contains the “midrashic kernel” that shaped the stories in both Gen 24 and Gen 15: the person is to stand outside the house of his neighbor (v 11). This statement is set over against the statement that, “You shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun goes down” (v 13a). It is also possible to read v 11 as a concentric sentence, which moves from a man standing outside a house to the pledge brought to him there outside: בחוץ תעמד ”A “Outside you shall stand

והאישׁ ”B “and the man

אשׁר אתה נשׁה בו ”X “to whom you make the loan

יוציא אליך ”B′ “he shall bring to you

את־העבוט החוצה ”A′ “the pledge outside

In this circular sentence, in which the content is much the same as the larger whole .outside,” functions as an inclusion“ ,חוץ vv 10–13), the word) If the law prohibiting the theft of a fellow Israelite in 24:7 is the most transparent in terms of the relationship between an individual law in Deuteronomy and the narrative associated with it in Genesis (i.e., the sale of Joseph into slavery in Gen 37:26–28), the law on distrained property inDeut 24:10–13 may be the most opaque, and Carmichael missed it in his study. It is also the most detailed in terms of its subsequent expansion in the story of Isaac obtaining Rebekah as his wife (Gen 24:1–67), and to a lesser degree the story of God’s covenant with Abram in Gen 15:5–21. Almost every word in Deut 24:10–13 takes on fresh meaning within the narrative stories. is Rebekah, who is obtained by an (עבוט) ”In the story of Gen 24, the “pledge .(v 2; cf. Deut 24:10 ,ביתו) ”unnamed servant, described as “the oldest of his house When this man, who has been sent to obtain the “pledge” from the house of Laban, ,תעמד בחוץ) ”?arrives at his destination, Rebekah asks, “Why do you stand outside v 31; cf. Deut 24:11). In one sense it is Isaac, the servant’s master, who is “standing outside” the land of Aram-naharaim waiting at “his house” in Canaan for his servant to in Deut 24:13) with ,השׁב תשׁיב לו ”,return to him (cf. “he shall surely return to him the “pledge”—his bride-to-be. Isaac went out to meditate in the field “in the evening” כבא ) ”in Gen 24:63, shortly before “the going down of the sun (לפנות ערב) of Deut 24:13. And the words “that he may sleep in his garment” take on fresh (השׁמשׁ meaning in relation to the following words of the Genesis narrative: “and [Isaac] took Rebekah and she became his wife” (Gen 24:67), which should be compared with the same expression in Deut 21:11; 22:13; 23:1; 24:1–5 (five times). Moreover, the words and they blessed,” in Gen“ ,ויברכו in Deut 24:13 become (וברכך) ”he shall bless you“ 24:60 to introduce the blessing pronounced by the men of Laban’s house on Rebekah: “Our sister, be the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them!” At this point, the hearer is reminded of a similar blessing to Abraham in times past, ולך תהיה ) ”for the very next phrase in the law, “it shall be counted as righteousness takes us back to the narrative of God’s covenant with Abram in Gen 15, when ,(צדקה and said, “Look toward heaven and (ויוצא אתו החוצה) ”God “brought him outside number the stars, if you are able.… So shall your descendants be” (Gen 15:5). And ויחשׁבה לו ) ”Abraham believed God, who “reckoned it to him as righteousness a ,[ויהי השׁמשׁ לבוא] v 6). A few verses later: “As the sun was going down ,צדקה .fell on Abram; and lo, a dread and great darkness fell upon him [תרדמה] deep sleep Then the LORD said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be … oppressed for four hundred years.… As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back [אבתיך] [ויהי השׁמשׁ באה] here in the fourth generation.…’ When the sun had gone down and it was dark … on that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram” (Gen 15:12–18). The statement “they shall come back here in the fourth generation” takes on new meaning in this reading, for that is what we have just now done in following the syllabus of the laws in Deuteronomy to read the narrative in Genesis. The four generations are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, and Jacob’s twelve sons (the tribes of Israel), with the focus narrowing to the persons of Joseph (Deut 24:7, 17–22; 25:1– 3, 13–16) and Judah (25:4–12) in that fourth generation. The moment the sale of Joseph by his brothers is introduced in 24:7 (in the law prohibiting such a theft of a fellow Israelite) our attention is first directed to Miriam’s “leprosy” (24:8–9) in the era of the exodus from Egypt and the “present,” from the perspective of Deuteronomy. But the next law (24:10–13) takes us back three generations to Isaac’s quest for a wife in Gen 24:1–67, which then takes us back still further, one more generation, to the original story of Abram, who had already outlined all that was to follow in a brief prophecy, which concludes with the curious words that “they will come back here in the fourth And that is what we have done in this reading .(ודור רביעי ישׁובו הנה) ”generation of Genesis through the lens of the laws of Deuteronomy. The content of Gen 15:12–18, which is framed by repetition of words expanding the when the sun goes down,” of Deut 24:13, may be outlined as“ ,כבא השׁמשׁ phrase follows:

A As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram 15:12 B After 400 years of oppression your descendants will come out 15:13–14 in peace 15:15 (אבתיך) X As for you, you shall go to your fathers B′ And they shall come back here in the fourth generation 15:16 A′ When the sun had gone down, YHWH made a covenant with Abram 15:17–18

The inner frame in this structure pairs the four hundred years of oppression in Egypt with the “coming back in the fourth generation,” in the form of poetic speech. In the , ﬠֲ ב וֹ ט center we find the key to unlock the puzzle of the repeated use of the word “pledge,” in Deut 24:10–13. The word was chosen because of its similarity in sound to as used in Gen 15:15. Here the reference is to the death of Abram, who אָ ב וֹ ת the word Rebekah, who is .(בשׂיבה טובה) ”would go to be with his fathers “in a good old age ,of Gen 15:15 in that she אבות in the story of Gen 24, is also related to the עבוט the like Sarah before her, is the “mother of the fathers,” as it were; for her two sons are Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Esau, whose lineage includes the chiefs of Edom, one of whom will take center stage in another time and place within the biblical narrative—in the land of Uz, where Job lives to see “his sons, and his son’s sons, four generations.” Like his “brother” Abram, Job “died, an old man and full of days” (Job 42:16–17). In Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” of Deut 24:10–13, he found 17 words in secondary clauses and a total of 46 words. Though this could be interpreted as 2 × 23 glory”), Labuschagne found deeper significance in the“ ,כבוד the numerical value of) = ד] + [18 = צ] =) in v 13 is also 46 צדקהfact that the numerical value of the key word ,משׁפט ,and the numerical value of another key word ,([5 = ה] + [19 = ק] + [4 “justice,” is 60. The reasons for these conclusions become clear when the evidence for the whole of 24:10–18 is examined: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

( צדקה =) 46 = 25 + 21 13–24:10 24:10–18 65 + 54 = 119 (= 7 × 17)

24:14–15, 17– (= 2 × 34 + 26 = 60 ( משׁפט =) (17 18

24:14–15 20 + 14 = 34 (= 2 × 17) 24:14–16 30 + 17 = 47

24:17–18 14 + 12 = 26

24:18 9 + 8 = 17

It is clear that the primary literary unit here is 24:10–18, which has a total of 119 (= 7 × 17) words. Within this larger unit, the major subunits are vv 10–13, 14–15, and 17–18. The prohibition of transgenerational punishment in v 16 was treated somewhat differently by the ancient scribes, who connected it with vv 14–15 so as to have 17 words after ʾatnāḥ in vv 14–16. The compositional formula 34 + 26 = 60 represents the distribution of words between main clauses and subordinate clauses, as well as the number of words before and after ʾatnāḥ in vv 14–15 + 17–18. In their numerical composition, the scribes of ancient Israel appear to be associating God, as signified by ,משׁפטrighteousness,” and“ ,צדקה the divine-name numbers, with the concepts of “justice.”

Comment

to your neighbor, a loan of any sort,” you are [תשׁה] When you make a loan“ 10 Mayes ”.[עבטו] to take his pledge [בא אל־ביתו] not permitted to “enter his house says the law here is influenced by its parallel in Exod 22:26–27, which also uses the [brother” ([1981“ ,אח your neighbor,” instead of the expected word“ ,רעך expression to lend, become a“ ,נשׁה The term used for making a loan is the verbal root .(325 which also ,נשׁא from the root ,תשׁא was sometimes read as תשׁה creditor.” The verb means “to lend on interest.” The reason the creditor is not permitted to enter the debtor’s home to distrain property is usually interpreted to mean that “the debtor and his family would be humiliated by another man acting as master in the debtor’s domain, and the confrontation could lead to a fight” (Tigay [1996] 225). Reasoning along these lines, subsequent Jewish interpreters of the law determined that distraint by force of any kind was oppressive, such that distraint was permitted only with permission of the court. The same reasoning is reflected in the Laws of Hammurabi that penalized a creditor who distrains grain forcefully from a debtor, as Tigay has observed ([1996] 389 n. 42, citing Code of Hammurabi §113). A different interpretation of the law emerges in light to take or“ ,עבט the pledge,” from the root“ , הַ ﬠֲ ב וֹ ט of the use of the unusual word used as a noun appears four times in vv 10–13 and ﬠֲ ב וֹ ט give a pledge.” The term nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Its use as a verb is limited to four occurrences as well, all in Deuteronomy: 15:6 (twice); 15:8; and here in 24:10 (in Joel 2:7 the appears with an altogether different meaning). Moreover, the עבט root appears in vv 6 and 17, which has led Milgrom (Cult and חבל synonym Conscience, 102–4) and others (Tigay, Empirical Models, 168) to argue that we have evidence here for conflation. It is more likely that a new word is introduced because of the play on sounds the author wishes to convey (see discussion above in Form/Structure/Setting). outside you shall stand,” appears in reverse order“ ,בחוץ תעמד The phrase 11 בחוץ and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible (the phrase ,(תעמד בחוץ) in Gen 24:31 .(in Ezra 10:13 being the only other time the two lexical items appear together לעמוד The instruction to bring the pledge outside to the man who is receiving that pledge takes on deeper meaning in the story of Rebekah becoming the wife of Isaac in Gen 24. which I render here as “he is a poor man,” could also be ,אישׁ עני The phrase 12 ,where, in a metaphorical sense ”,[ענו or perhaps ,עני] interpreted as “a man of the poor the second term refers to “Israel” itself as the poor, afflicted, or pious one (as it frequently does in the Psalms and elsewhere; cf.Pss 10:17; 22:27 [Eng. 26]; 25:9 [twice]; 34:3 [Eng. 2]; 37:11; 69:33 [Eng. 32]; etc.). In a Hebrew letter from the seventh century B.C.E. found at Yavneh-Yam a man asks for the return of a garment that was wrongfully seized (cited by Craigie [1976] 308 n. 15; see ANET, 568; and Tigay, FS N. Sarna, 328–33). The words “sleep in his garment (העבוט) ”take on a deeper meaning when “the pledge (שׁכב בעבט) ”[pledge] becomes Rebekah, who is taken to the man “standing outside” (first to Isaac’s unnamed servant in Aram-naharaim, and then to Isaac himself). 13 The statement “you shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun goes down” takes on concrete meaning as one reads: “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field in the evening; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there were camels coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she alighted from the he shall sleep in his“ ,ושׁכב בשׂלמתו camel” (Gen 24:63–64). Moreover, the words garment,” also take on new meaning in light of what we have already learned from other laws: that a man’s wife is his garment. As the law in Deut 23:1 clearly states, for a son to lie with his father’s wife (or concubine) means figuratively that he has removed his (וברכך) ”father’s covering and put it on himself. The statement “and he shall bless you that Rebekah received when she (ויברכו) evokes a comparison with the blessing departed from her brother Laban’s house: “Our sister, be the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them!” (Gen pledge,” was chosen so that, in the“ , ﬠֲ ב וֹ ט It would appear that the new term .(24:60 ,fathers”; for Rebekah“ , אָ ב וֹ ת telling of the story, the people would also hear the word like Sarah before her, is indeed the mother of the fathers in ancient Israel, through both ,ולך תהיה צדקה :of her twin sons, Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom. The law concludes “it shall be counted as righteousness for you,” which carries the reader’s attention back to the story of God’s covenant with Abram in Gen 15 (see the discussion וצדקה ] in Deut 6:25 צדקה under Form/Structure/Setting, and cf. also the use of and 9:4–6[three times, and the reference there to Abraham, Isaac, and [תהיה לנו Jacob]).

Explanation The older version of the law on taking and holding distrained property in Exod 22:25–27 makes no mention of not entering the house of the debtor to take what he has pledged in security. If the debtor is poor, the article pledged (usually an item of clothing) must be returned that same day, before sundown, “for that is his only covering, it is his mantle for his body; in what else shall he sleep?” (Exod 22:26). Deuteronomy adds an injunction that prohibits the creditor from entering the debtor’s home to remove the pledge. As shown in the discussion above, this addition plays a substantive role in shaping the narrative stories in Gen 24 and 15, which reflect the wording of this law. As Matthew Henry put it long ago, the law in Deuteronomy forbids the taking of anything for a pledge “by want of which a man was in danger of being undone. Consonant to this is the ancient common law of England, which provides, That no man can be distrained of the utensils or instruments of his trade or profession, as the axe of a carpenter, or the books of a scholar, or beasts belonging to the plough, as long as there are other beasts, of which distress may be made” (Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 668). The law concludes with the remark that the debtor “shall bless you, and it shall be counted for righteousness for you before YHWH your God” (v13), when you refrain from withholding distrained property. Even within the covenant community, where God’s blessing is bestowed, there will still be those who are disadvantaged and poor. It is our responsibility, under God, to alleviate their hardship.

7. Mistreatment of a Hired Servant—Timely Payment of Wages Due (24:14–15) Bibliography

Bienert, W. Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1954. Botterweck, G. J. “Die soziale Kritik des Propheten Amos.” In FSJ. Höffner. 1971. 39– 58. Fuchs, K. Die alttestamentliche Arbeitergesetzgebung im Vergleich zum Codex Hammurabi, zum altassyrischen und hethitischen Recht.Heidelberg: Evangelischer Verlag, 1935. Kim, Y. “The Vocabulary of Oppression in the Old Testament: ˓sq, ynh, lhs, and Congeners” Diss., Drew Univ., 1981. Order No. 8119746. DA 42 (1981/82) 1213-A. Klengel, H. “Soziale Aspekte der altbabylonischen Dienstmiete.” In Beiträge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien. Ed. H. Klengel. SGKAO 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971. 39– 52. Milgrom, J. Cult and Conscience. 1976. 95–96, 98–102. Pons, J. L’Oppression dans l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Letouzey, 1981. Talmon, S. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960) 154. Wolff, H. W. “Herren und Knechte: Anstösse zur Überwindung der Klassengegensätze im Alten Testament.” TTZ 81 (1972) 129–39.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Mistreatment of a Hired Servant—Timely Payment of Wages Due [(4:4):(4:4)]

14 You shall not withhold the wage / of a poor and needy one // 16 2 among your brothers / or among your sojourners / 13 2_ Whoever is in your land / in your towns // 12 2 15 on the same day you shall give him his wages / 13 1 before the sun goes down / 14 1_ For he is \ poor / 8 1 and upon it / he lifts / his life breath // 15 3_ That he not call out against you / to YHWH / 14 2 _2 8 ס // and it becomes in you / a sin

Notes

,as the constr. with Craigie ([1976] 309 n. 16). Some Heb. MSS שְׂ כַ ר a. Reading.14 ,שׂכיר wages,” for MT“ ,שׂכר including DSS (1Q5, frg. 8, in DJD 1:58), read “laborer” or “hireling.” The revocalization improves the balance in mora count. 14.b. Reading 2 pl. with SPMss, LXX, and Tg. Ps.-J. as lectio difficilior (cf. Notes 24:4.c and 24:7.c). 14.c-c. Omitted in two Heb. MSS, LXX, and Syr. 14.d. Cairo Geniza fragments read 2 sg.

15.a. Reading pašṭaʾ followed by zāqēp̱ parvum as conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The first of three laws on protecting the poor and vulnerable in 24:14–22 deals with the matter of mistreating a hired servant by not paying wages due in a timely manner (24:14–15). The place and function of this law within the larger structure of 24:5– 25:19 (the third major subsection within the sixth of the eleven weekly portions of Torah readings in Deuteronomy) as a whole may be outlined in a menorah pattern:

A Deferral of a new husband from military service 24:5 B Four laws on distrained property, kidnapping, and “leprosy” 24:6–13 C Mistreating a hired servant—timely payment of wages 24:14–15 X Transgenerational punishment on fathers and sons 24:16 C′ Protecting the sojourner, orphan, and widow 24:17–22 B′ Five laws on humanitarian and social issues 25:1–16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression 25:17–19

This structure should be compared with the one presented above in the introduction to the section on the laws of 24:6–25:16, in which specific interest was focused on the first of four laws on humanitarian and social issues in 24:6–13, with the law on levirate marriage (25:5–10) in the center of a menorah pattern. The outer frame remains the same, as we move from one law on matters of Holy War, in which a new husband is deferred from military service (24:5), to another law on YHWH’s Holy War (25:17–19). The series of twelve laws on matters of social ethics within this frame are arranged in a symmetrical pattern, with three laws dealing with the protection of the poor and vulnerable in the center (24:14–22). It should be noted in passing that the symmetry between sections B and B’ in this outline is greater than appears at first glance; for the laws on limits to flogging (25:1–3) and not muzzling an ox (25:4) are combined in a single literary unit, which is set over against three laws dealing with sexual matters or with sexual allusions (25:5–16), including the law on honest weights and measures, as we will see. In sections B and B′, the four literary subunits are arranged in simple chiasms, which also display the familiar three-plus-one structuring pattern, though in a somewhat surprising manner (see the detailed discussion of these laws below). The relation between these laws may be outlined as follows: A Taking a millstone as pledge (distrained property) 24:6 B Theft of a fellow Israelite (kidnapping) 24:7 B Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 A′ Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 A Humanitarian concern for human beings and draft animals 25:1–4 B Levirate marriage 25:5–10 B An immodest lady wrestler (assisting her husband in a fight) 25:11–12 A′ Honest weights and measures 25:13–16 In the first of these structures (24:6–13), we find a pair of laws on taking and holding distrained property (v 6 and vv 10–13) functioning as a frame around a pair of laws on kidnapping (v 7) and “leprosy” (vv 8–9). It is the law on “leprosy” that stands apart as separate from the other three, which have to do with similar humanitarian concerns: taking or “stealing a person [life]” (v 7) from among those who are one’s brothers (v 7) or neighbors (v 10). The second of these structures (25:1–16) displays a similar pattern; most translators and commentators miss the double entendre of 25:13. See the detailed discussion of these laws below. The innermost frame in the concentric structural design of 24:5–25:19 moves from a law protecting the hired servant from mistreatment (24:14–15) to a more general law on the protection of the sojourner, orphan, and widow (24:17–22). It should be noted that sojourner,” appears in both of these laws (vv 14 and 17). Once again it is“ ,גר the term easy to see the familiar three-plus-one patterning of Jungian psychology in the trio of sojourner, orphan, and widow (vv 17–22) set over against the law of the hired servant (vv 14–15), who is designated “a laborer who is poor and needy among your brothers or among your sojourners” (v 14). Both boundaries of the law in 24:14–15 are marked with the Numeruswechsel as well as sĕtûmāʾ layout markers. The law in between (vv 10–13) is thus singled out as the center of another structural unit, perhaps as follows: A Taking a millstone as pledge (Isaac and Ishmael) 24:5–6 B Theft of a fellow Israelite (Joseph enslaved in Egypt) 24:7 C Dealing with “leprosy” (Miriam vs. Moses) 24:8–9 Law on distrained (Isaac/Rebekah and 24:10– X property Abraham) 13 24:14– C′ Mistreating a hired servant (Jacob vs. Laban) 15 B′ Transgenerational punishment (Israel and the Hivites) 24:16 24:17– A′ On the widow, orphan, and alien (Joseph and his brothers) 22

In this reading the story of the conflict between Jacob and Laban (as shaped by the law on the mistreatment of a hired servant in 24:14–15) is to be read over against the story of conflict between Moses and his sister Miriam (and his brother Aaron as well) in 24:8–9. The structure of the law in 24:14–15 may be outlined as follows:

A You shall not oppress a laborer who is poor and needy 24:14a B among your brothers or sojourners in your town 24:14b X Pay his wages on the same day, before the sun goes down 24:15a B′ for he is poor and depends on it 24:15b A′ Lest he cry out against you to YHWH and it be sin in you 24:15c

In the center is the law requiring the timely payment of wages due “before the sun goes down” (v 15a). The outer frame puts that law in a more general context by adding a motive clause: you shall not oppress a laborer who is poor and needy, lest he cry out against you to YHWH and it be sin in you (vv14a, 15c). In the inner frame we see that the law applies to anyone who is poor and dependent on wages that are timely paid (v 15b), whether that person is an Israelite brother or a sojourner in your towns (v 14b). When Carmichael read the law on timely payment of wages (24:14–15) in relation to the narrative in Genesis (LNB, 268–70), he found himself once again dealing with the stories of Jacob and Laban (see the law of the fugitive slave in 23:15–16)—and in the story of Jacob’s flight from Haran in particular (Gen 31:4–7; 40–42). “All the concerns that are mentioned in the law about mistreating a hired servant—he is poor and needy, he may be a brother Israelite or a sojourner, his hire should be given him on the day he earns it—show up in Laban’s treatment of Jacob” (Carmichael, LNB, 269). In the words of Deut 24:14–15, Laban oppressed his servant after seven years by not paying the wages he had promised, namely Rachel. Though Jacob later received Rachel as well, Jacob still complained to Laban: “These twenty years I have been in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed” (Gen 31:41–42). The law makes reference to the downtrodden servant crying out against his employer to God, who intervenes in his behalf. In short, the story of Jacob and Laban is an expansion of the law in Deut 24:14– 15, almost phrase by phrase. In his “logotechnische analyse” of the law in Deut 24:14–15, Labuschagne found the 34 (= 2 × 17) words in these two verses distributed before and after ʾatnāḥ and between main clauses and subordinate clauses to be identical (20 + 14). On the relationship of these two verses to their larger context in24:10–18, see the discussion in the previous section on 24:10–13.

Comment

refers to cheating עשׁק a laborer.” The term [תעשׁק] You shall not oppress“ 14 cf. Matt 20:1–16, the parable (שׂכיר) ”someone out of their belongings. On a “laborer of Jesus and the hiring of such laborers at different times in the same day for the same wage. 15 The words rendered “upon it he lifts his life breath” mean “he is counting on it” (Tigay [1996] 227). Though the worker may be unable to force his employer to pay him on time, he can “call out against you to YHWH,” who will intervene (cf. Exod 22:21– 23; Deut 15:9). “Some of the prayers of Jeremiah, and a number of Psalms, are cries against mistreatment” (Tigay [1996] 227; on 390 n. 52 he refers to Jer 11:20; 20:12; Ps 109; and B. Porten,Archives from Elephantine [Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1968] 157–58, 315–16). On the matter of incurring guilt, i.e., “and it becomes in you a sin,” see also 23:22 above.

Explanation The employer-employee relationship is addressed in the law on mistreatment of a hired servant (24:14–15), which law focuses its interest primarily on the matter of timely payment of wages due. For Craigie, “the use of this legislation in the NT (Jas. 5:4) makes clear that it protects not only the poor, but also the rich; the rich men, fulfilling their obligations to their poor laborers, maintain the integrity of the community. But failure to deal honestly in transactions of this sort brings severe condemnation (Jas. 5:1–6)” ([1976] 309). The parable of Jesus on the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1–16) picks up on these words in the statement that “when evening came” (Matt 20:8) the owner of the vineyard paid them their wages. In this particular instance, however, the wages received were the same for each person regardless of how many hours they had worked. Thus the question of just payment for their labor was raised by the ones who had worked longest and were the last to be paid, for they expected to receive more than the others, who had not “borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat” as they had (Matt 20:12). The owner’s response was forthright: “I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius [the usual daily wage]?” (Matt 20:13). So long as the employer pays what is due to those he has employed, he remains free to do what he chooses with what belongs to him (Matt 20:15). Jesus concludes his parable with a riddle: “So the last will be first, and the first last” (Matt 20:16). There is an important spiritual lesson here. With God as the “owner of the vineyard,” we have an “employer” who is both just and merciful. We do well to pattern our own lives accordingly; for the deepest and most satisfying experiences in life are not found through self-centered acquisition of wealth and power achieved through exploitation of others, or even by the exercise of “justice” alone to those under us. Charles Dickens saw this principle with remarkable clarity in the portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge in his classic work, A Christmas Carol, as did Frank Capra in his timeless film,It’s a Wonderful Life.

8. Transgenerational Punishment Forbidden (24:16) Bibliography

Ahuis, F. Autorität im Umbruch: Ein forgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literarischen Schichtung und der zeitgeschichtlichen Bezüge von Num 16 und 17.CThM A.13. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1983. Callaway, P. R. “Deut 21:18–21: Proverbial Wisdom and Law.” JBL 103 (1984) 341–52, esp. 351 n. 42. Cazelles, H. “Les origines du Décalogue.” EI 9 (1969) 14–19, esp. 15. Daube, D. “Concerning Methods of Bible-Criticism: Late Law in Early Narratives.” ArOr 17.1 (1949) 88–99, esp. 96. Furlani, G. “Familienhaftung.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928ff. 3:19. Gammie. J. G. “The Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy.” CBQ 32 (1970) 1–12. Greenberg, M. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law” (1960). In SBTS 3:295–300. Jacob, E.“Die altassyrischen Gesetze und ihr Verhältnis zu den Gesetzen des Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 41 (1925) 319–87. Leibowitz, N.Studies in Devarim. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1986. 238–39. Verdam, P. J. “ ‘On ne fera mourir les enfants pour les pères’ en droit biblique.” RIDA3 (1949) 393–416. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLA Sup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27–44, esp. 34–36. Yeivin, S. “Social, Religious and Cultural Trends in Jerusalem under the Davidic Dynasty.” VT 3 (1953) 149–66.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Transgenerational Punishment Forbidden [3:3]

16 Fathers shall not be put to death / for children / 17 2 and as for the children / 6 1 They shall not be put to death for fathers // 12 1 _2 10 ס // each one for his own sin / shall be put to death

Notes

they will die”; two Heb. MSS“ , יָ מוּ ת וּ a-a. SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. read.16 ”.they shall be put to death“ , י וּ מְ ת וּ they will die,” for MT“ ,ימתו(ן) read

they shall“ ,ימתו b-b. Same as previous note with an additional Heb. MS reading.16 die.”

,he will be put to death”; another Heb MS“ ,יומת c-c. One Heb. MS and SP read.16 ”.he will die“ , יָ מוּ ת DSS, LXX, Syr., and Vg. read

Form/Structure/Setting Like a number of other laws in the sixth of the eleven weekly portions of Torah readings from Deuteronomy (21:10–25:19), the brief law prohibiting transgenerational punishment in 24:16 functions in more than one role from a structural point of view. In one reading, it is the center of the collection of laws on matters of social ethics in 24:5– 25:19, for it stands between the two laws on protecting the poor and the vulnerable (24:14–15 and 24:17–22) in the center of the menorah pattern discussed in the previous section of this commentary. At the same time, however, it completes a major subsection in a group of five laws on humanitarian issues within the larger architectural design of Deut 24–25 as a whole, which may be outlined as follows: A Two laws on marriage and war 24:1–5 B Laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics 24:6–16 a Taking a millstone in pledge and kidnapping 24:6–7 b Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 x Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 b′ Mistreating a hired servant—timely payment of wages 24:14–15 a′ Transgenerational punishment forbidden 24:16 X Law protecting the sojourner, orphan, and widow 24:17–22 B′ Laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics 25:1–16 a Limits on flogging 25:1–3 b Not muzzling the ox 25:4 x Levirate marriage 25:5–10 b′ Wife’s immodest intervention in a fight 25:11–12 a′ Honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression (YHWH’s Holy War) 25:17–19

The framework of this structure (A, X, A′) is made up of three laws on marriage and war (24:1–5 and 25:17–19), which are set over against the summary law on protecting the sojourner, orphan, and widow (24:17–22) in the center. The outer frame in this structure moves from a law on forbidden marriage in 24:1–4 (corresponding with the seventh commandment on adultery) and a law on both war and marriage in 24:5 (sixth and seventh commandments) to a law on YHWH’s Holy War in 25:17–19 (sixth commandment on murder/war, with overtones on matters of worship in the first, second, and third commandments in terms of YHWH’s Holy War as celebrated event in ancient Israel; see Excursus: “Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel”). The inner frame is made up of two parallel five-part concentric substructures with laws on matters of social ethics and humanitarian concerns dealing primarily with the eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments (on stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting what belongs to one’s neighbor). The laws on taking and holding distrained property (24:10–13) and the levirate marriage (25:5–10) appear in the center of the two concentric subsections; this structure directs attention once again to commandments seven through ten of the Decalogue. Once again, the brief law itself in 24:16 is circular in its structural design—in the ”,they shall be put to death“ ,יומתו form of a circular sentence—with the term appearing at the beginning, middle, and end. לא־יומתו אבות ”A “Fathers shall not be put to death

על־בנים ”B “for (their) children

ובנים לא־יומתו ”X “and children shall not be put to death

על־אבות ”B′ “for (their) fathers אישׁ בחטאו יומתו ”A′ “each one for his own sin shall be put to death

which appears in ,יומתו Three of the nine lexical items in this sentence are the word both parts of the outer frame and in the center of this structure. The inner frame has the children” in the context of judicial procedure in“ ,בנים fathers,” and“ ,אבות pairing of regard to capital punishment. This simple structure has profound ramifications for theological reflection within the context of the narrative in Genesis and beyond. Though the narrative of the rape of Dinah (Gen 34) was shaped in part by both the law of illicit mixtures on plowing with an ox and an ass together (22:10) and the law on the rape of an unengaged virgin (22:28–29), its literary structure is shaped by the law of transgenerational punishment in 24:16 as well. “It is this story … that provides an instance (the only one in biblical literature) of a father’s being put to death because of his son’s misdeed, namely, Shechem’s seduction of Dinah” (Carmichael, LNB, 271–72). In the story both the father (Hamor) and the son (Shechem) died. It should be noted that Jacob complains that his own life (as father) was endangered by the sin of his sons (Gen 34:30). The shaping of the narrative of Gen 34 in terms of the law in Deut 24:16 is evident from the anlysis of its content, which may be outlined as follows:

A Shechem (son of Hamor) seduced Dinah (daughter of Israel) Gen 34:1–4 B Jacob’s response: he held his peace until his sons came Gen 34:5 C Hamor (father of Shechem) negotiates with Jacob Gen 34:6–12 X Jacob’s sons plot revenge—death of father and son Gen 34:13–25 C′ Hamor and his son Shechem are slain by Simeon and Levi Gen 34:26–29 B′ Jacob’s response: “I shall be destroyed, both I and my household” Gen 34:30 A′ The sons’ response: “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” Gen 34:31

The center of this structure (34:6–29) corresponds with the law of Deut 24:16 and the issue of transgenerational punishment. The outermost frame sets the sin of Shechem (son of Hamor) in Gen 34:1–4 over against the angry response of Dinah’s brothers, who are incensed with what Shechem has done (34:31). The second frame presents the plight of the father Jacob/Israel, whose life is jeopardized by the rash immoral action of his sons (vv 5, 30). In the innermost frame Hamor negotiates with Jacob (vv 6–12), but dies because of the sin of his son Shechem (vv 26–29). It would appear, according to this story, that fathers are put to death for the sins of their children.

Comment

they shall (not) be put to death,” appears three times in this“ ,יומתו The word 16 verse and elsewhere only in reference to human execution, rather than divine punishment. The law is quoted in 2 Kgs 14:6 to explain Amaziah’s conduct when he became king of Israel. For parallels in ancient Near Eastern law, where members of a man’s family were considered extensions of his personal property rather than individuals as such, see Code of Hammurabi §§116, 209–10, 230; Middle Assyrian Laws §§50, 55; Hittite Instructions, ANET, 207–8 (see Tigay [1996] 390 n. 55). See also Exod 21:31, in the law of the goring ox, which does not include the provision that the owner’s child is to be punished if the victim is a child, as might be the case elsewhere in the ancient Near East where such lex talionis was carried out—that is, a person being punished by the same harm done to a member of his own family, often the corresponding member. On the proverbial maxim “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” seeJer 31:29–30 and Ezek 18:2. Mayes ([1979] 326) has called attention to “a catchword connection with the previous verse” in the use ”,sin“ ,חטא for his own sin,” which corresponds with the word“ ,בחטאוof the word there.Craigie called attention to an interesting parallel in Middle Assyrian Law (ANET, 180, A §2) where “a woman convicted of blasphemy was to bear the penalty of her crime, but her husband and children were not to be punished” ([1976] 310 n. 17). Craigie also noted that the law here must be held in balance with that of 5:9, where “the iniquity of the fathers is visited on their children to the third and fourth generations,” for a father’s criminal act inevitably affects the lives of his children. On the one hand, a person is criminally responsible under the law for his or her own behavior. On the other hand, a criminal act carries with it consequences that affect the children of that guilty person.

Explanation The law prohibiting transgenerational punishment in 24:16 stands out in even a cursory reading of the text of Deut 24–25 because it alone addresses the issue of capital punishment. Though some have argued that a law such as this is superfluous in modern society, we do well to recall the ballad of “The Martins and the Coys” in our own folk tradition, and other similar portrayals of vengeance in the name of the family in which children die for the sins of their parents and vice versa. The law was apparently overriden in ancient Israel in matters of Holy War, for Achan’s entire family was executed, including “his sons and daughters” (Josh 7:24), for the sin of the father in violating the ban on taking booty during the destruction of Jericho (see Josh 7:6–26). The law was violated in other contexts as well throughout the history of ancient Israel. King David surrendered seven sons (including grandsons) of Saul to be executed by the Gibeonites for the sin of Saul (2 Sam 21:1–9); and King Baasha slew “all the house of Jeroboam” when he usurped the throne of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs 15:29–30), with Zimri after him doing the same to the house of Baasha (1 Kgs 16:11–13), and Jehu after him to the sons of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:6–7). It should be noted, however, that King Amaziah spared the children of his father’s murderers on the basis of the law here in Deuteronomy, which is cited: it “is written in the book of the law of Moses … ‘fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin’ ” (2 Kgs 14:6). A deeper theological issue emerges as we reflect on the meaning of atonement for sin. Some have suggested that when David surrendered the “seven of [Saul’s] sons” (2 Sam 21:6) to the Gibeonites to be executed for the sin of Saul, “they died rather as sacrifices than as malefactors” (M. Henry,Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 669). Be that as it may, it is clear that the doctrine of the “original sin” of Adam and the atoning death of Jesus Christ as the “second Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45) is understood in Christian theology in terms of a reversal of the law as stated here—the transgenerational guilt of “original sin” is countered with transgenerational blessing. The children of Adam do suffer for the sin of their father; and the atoning death of Jesus, as the incarnation of God the Father, applies to all of God’s,” for all time and eternity.

9–10. Taking a Widow’s Garment in Pledge and Gleanings for the Poor (24:17–22) Bibliography

Borowski, O. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Canaan, T. “Plant-Lore in Palestine Superstition.” JPOS 8 (1928) 140–41.Carmichael, C. M. “The Law of the Forgotten Sheaf.” In SBLSP 20. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. 35–37. Dahood, M. “Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew.” CBQ44 (1982) 1–24, esp. 15–16. Epstein, L. M. Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: Bloch, 1948. 64–67, 75–78. Fensham, F. C. “Aspects of Family Law in the Covenant Code in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” DiIs 1 (1969) v– xix. ———. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literataure.” JNES 21 (1962) 129–39. Fichtner, J. “Die Bewältigung heidnischer Vorstellungen und Praktiken in der Welt des Alten Testaments.” In FSFriedrich Baumgärtel. Ed. L. Rost. Erlanger Forschungen 10. Erlangen, 1959. 24–40. Haran, M. “Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und das säugende Muttertier.” TZ 41 (1985) 135–59, esp. 150. Heaton, E. W. “Sojourners in Egypt.” ExpTim 58 (1946) 80–82. Houton, C. van. The Alien in Israelite Law. JSOTSup107. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Hvidberg-Hansen, O. “Die Vernichtung des goldenen Kalbes und der ugaritische Ernteritus: Der rituelle Hintergrund für Exod. 32, 20 und andere alttestamentliche Berichte über die Vernichtung von –gûr.” TDOT 2:439 גּוּר“ .Götterbildern.” AcOr 33 (1971) 5–46, esp. 14–15. Kellermann, D 49. Lohfink, N. Option for the Poor. Tr. L. M. Maloney. 2nd ed. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1995. Mauch, T. M. “Sojourner.” IDB 4:397–99. Meek, T. J. “The Translation of Ger in the Hexateuch and Its Bearing on the .” JBL 49 (1930) 172– 80. Melamed, A. “Break-up of Stereotype Phrases as an Artistic Device in Biblical Poetry.” In Studies in the Bible. Ed. C. Rabin. ScrHier 8. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. 115–53. Merendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz. 1969. 307–8. Miller, P. D. “Studies in Hebrew Word Patterns.” HTR 73 (1980) 79–89. Montet, P. Everyday Life in Egypt. Tr. A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop and M. S. Drower. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. 116. Muntingh, L. M. “Die Begrip ‘Gēr’ in die Ou Testament.”NGTT 3 (1962) 534–58. Nielsen, E. “You Shall Not Muzzle an Ox While It Is Treading out the Corn.” In Law, History and Tradition. 1983. 94– 105. Ogletree, T. W.Hospitality to the Stranger. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Peckham, B. “Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel.” In FS F. M. Cross. 1987. 79–99, esp. 81. Pedersen, J.Israel: Its Life and Culture. 2 vols. London: Oxford UP, 1926–40. 1:39–46. Rothschild, M. M. “Aliens and Israelites.” DD 9 (1981) 196–202; 10 (1981–82) 118–21; 11 (1982) 35– 39. Scaria, K. J. “Social Justice in the Old Testament.” BibBh 4 (1978) 163–92. Schmidt, K. L., Schmidt, M. A., and Meyer, R. “Πάροικος.” TDNT5:841–53. Smith, D. L. The Religion of the Landless. Bloomington, IN: Meyer Stone, 1989. Spencer, J. R. “Sojourner.” ABD 6:103– 4. Spina, F. A. “Israelites asgērîm, ‘Sojourners,’ in Social and Historical Context.” In FS D. N. Freedman. 1983. 321–35. Sulzberger, M. The Status of Labor in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1923. Wolff, H. W. “Herren und Knechte: Anstösse zur Überwindung der Klassengegensätze im Alten Testament.” TTZ 81 (1972) 129–39.Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLA Sup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27–44, esp. 34–36.Yeivin, S. “Social, Religious and Cultural Trends in Jerusalem under the Davidic Dynasty.” VT 3 (1953) 149–66, esp. 153. Translation and Prosodic Analysis Taking a Widow’s Garment in Pledge [8:7]

17 You shall not pervert / justice / to the alien or the orphan // 13 3 and you shall not take in pledge / a widow’s / garment // 14 3 18 and you shall remember / that you were a slave \ in Egypt / 19 2_ And YHWH your God / redeemed you \ from there // 17 2 _5 25 ס // therefore / I command you / to do / this / thing

Gleanings for the Poor [7:4:7] [7:8]

19 When you reap your harvest in your field / 15 1 and you overlook a sheaf in the field / 13 1 You shall not return / to take it / 10 2 to the alien / to the orphan and widow / it shall go // 18 3_ In order that YHWH your God / may bless you / 17 2 in all / the work of your hands // 12 2_ 20 When you beat / your olive tree / 8 2 you shall not gather again / after you // 11 2 _3 18 ס // to the alien / to the orphan and widow / it shall go 21 When you gather / from your vines / 8 2 you shall not glean / after you // 12 2 to the alien / to the orphan and widow / it shall go // 18 3_ 22 And you shall remember / 6 1 that you were a slave / in the land of Egypt // 17 2 _5 25 ס // therefore / I command you / to do / this / thing

Notes 17.a. Three Heb. MSS, LXX-MS, Syr., Tg.MSS, Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. add waw-conj.; LXX adds καὶ χήρας, “and widow.”

18.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. in the land of“ ,בארץ מצרים b. Some Heb. MSS, LXX-MS, and Tg. Ps.-J. read.18 .in Egypt.” Prosodic analysis favors MT“ ,במצרים Egypt,” for MT

18.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 18.d-d. Omitted in one Heb. MS and SP. Prosodic analysis favors MT. to the poor and.” Prosodic analysis“ ,(לאביון ו =) a. LXX adds τῷ πτωχῷ καί.19 favors MT. 19.b. Two Heb. MSS, LXX, Syr., and Vg. add waw-conj. 19.c. One Heb. MS and LXX omit waw-conj.

”.your hands“ ,ידיך your hand,” for MT“ ,ידך d. Many Heb. MSS read.19 Although BHS has a space after this word, L does not.

”.to the poor and“ ,(לאביון ו =) a. LXX adds τῷ πτωχῷ καί.20 20.b. A few Heb. MSS, LXX, Syr., and Vg.MSS add waw-conj. 20.c. One Heb. MS omits waw-conj.

”.to the poor and“ ,(לאביון ו =) a. LXX adds τῷ πτωχῷ καί.21 21.b. LXX-MS and Syr. add waw-conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The law here is in two parts, which serve as a frame around one more instance of a law on distraining property: “you shall not take in pledge a widow’s garment” (24:17b). The function of this clause appears to be that of forming a menorah pattern around the structural theme of distraint:

A Taking a millstone in pledge 24:6 B Theft of a fellow Israelite (kidnapping) 24:7 C Dealing with “leprosy” 24:8–9 X Taking and holding distrained property 24:10–13 C′ Mistreating a hired servant—timely payment of wages 24:14–15 B′ Transgenerational punishment forbidden 24:16 A′ Taking a widow’s garment in pledge 24:17–18

Within a framework on the subject of distraint (A, X, A′), four laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics are arranged in two pairs. The relationship between these four laws is easily seen in the narratives shaped by them. The outer pair concerns conflict within the members of a given family: the theft of Joseph, who was sold into slavery by his brothers (Gen 37; cf. Deut 24:7), which is set over against the conflict between two of Joseph’s brothers (Simeon and Levi) and the Hivite King Hamor and his son Shechem (Gen 34; cf. Deut 24:16). The inner pair moves from the problem of “leprosy” in the conflict between Moses and his sister Miriam in the wilderness (Num 12; cf. Deut 24:8–9), and the conflict between Jacob and Laban in Mesopotamia (Gen 31; cf. Deut 24:14–15). Though Tigay ([1996] 228–29) divides vv 17–22 into two laws, prosodic analysis supports Craigie ([1976] 310) and others who see a single literary unit here. That unit is divided into three parts with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 18, 20, and 22. BHS incorrectly divides the section into four parts, with spaces following vv 18, 19, 20, and 22. What appears as sĕtûmāʾ layout markers in BHS are actually blank spaces in L, and there is no space whatsoever left between vv 19 and 20 in that manuscript. The reason for difficulties in determining the subsections in vv 17–22 is that the prosodic structure of vv 19–20 is somewhat anomalous, with all of v 19b (“In order that YHWH your God may bless you in all the work of your hands”) functioning as a rhythmic bridge in a 7:4:7 unit in terms of accentual stress units. This central unit is also precisely in the center of the larger literary structure that extends from 24:5 through 25:19. The concentric structural design of 24:17–22 as a whole may be outlined as follows: A Do not pervert justice to the alien, orphan, and widow … 24:17–18 B Leave some of your grain for the alien, orphan, and widow 24:19a X So that YHWH may bless you in all you do 24:19b B Leave some of your olives for the alien, orphan, and widow 24:20 A′ Leave some of your grapes for the alien, orphan, and widow … 24:21–22 There is a great deal of repetition in these verses. Both sections of both the inner and outer frames make specific reference to the alien, the orphan, and the widow (vv 17, 19, 20, 22). Moreover, the statement “and you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt … therefore I command you to do this thing” appears in both parts of the inner frame (vv 18, 22). The source of God’s blessing is clear in this structure. It comes from protecting the aliens, orphans, and widows in our midst. As Jesus once put it, the second greatest commandment is this: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39). That is the substance of the law, especially in Deut 24:6–25:16. Carmichael has noted a number of connections between the law as expressed here and the story of Joseph, the most obvious being the repeated statement to “remember that you were a slave in Egypt” (vv 18, 22). “A blatant example of a perversion of justice was Joseph’s imprisonment for an offense he never committed, namely, lying with Potiphar’s wife. Joseph, moreover, was at this time a slave in Egypt (Potiphar’s wife refers to him as the ‘Hebrew servant’ [Gen 39:17])” (LNB, 280). Joseph is also comparable to the sojourner in the law. Though the topic of the widow’s garment taken in pledge has fewer clear parallels in the Joseph narrative, it should be noted that his garment was the key piece of evidence for the injustice done to him in the incident with garment,” appears in both Gen“ ,בגד Potiphar’s wife. Moreover, the Hebrew word 39:12 and Deut 24:17. The connection between the widow’s garment taken in pledge in the law and the narrative tradition in Genesis is much easier to see in the story of Tamar’s seduction of Judah in Gen 38. “Judah in effect forced her to put away her widow’s garment in order to obtain what should have already been given to her, namely, seed that she would then return to him in the form of a child to continue the family line” (Carmichael, LNB, 281). The law of the forgotten sheaf (Deut 24:19) differs markedly from its counterparts in Lev 19:9 and 23:22, which indicate that specific parts of the field are to be left unharvested for the poor: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.” This rule is much more systematic than that in Deut 24:19 concerning a sheaf that is .( ושׁכחת) ”overlooked” or “forgotten“ Carmichael makes a strong case for relating the laws of 24:17–25:3 with the story of Joseph in Gen 37–47 (LNB, 278–91). He notes that the sheaf plays a central role in the Joseph story, as does an emphasis on remembering (Gen 40:14, 23; 41:9). The remember,” occurs twice in the law, both times in the statement, “You shall“ ,זכר verb remember that you were a slave in Egypt” (vv 18, 22). And the sheaf of v 19 is forget.” The emphasis on grain for the needy shapes the“ ,שׁכח described with the verb story of Joseph’s rule in Egypt. “As overseer of the harvest Joseph saved everyone from starvation. His high position—in figurative terms he is the dominant sheaf—and the supply to needy people of sheaves of grain (in the literal sense) are intimately linked” (Carmichael, LNB, 286). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 24:17–22 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ 14 12 26 24:17–18 + = 24:19–22 32 23 55 + = 24:18 9 8 17 + = 24:19–21 26 15 41 + = The law on protecting the sojourner, orphan, and widow in vv 17–18 has a total of 26 words, and the law on gleanings for the poor in vv 19–22 is an example of what Schedl called the “minor tetraktys” 32 + 23 = 55 (see Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition”). The two parts in this construction, 23 and 32, are the alternate .counted as either 11 or 20 כ glory,” with“ ,כבוד numerical values of Hebrew

Comment 17–18 For a parallel law in the Pentateuch, see Exod 22:21–24. To “pervert justice” -is to judge unfairly in legal matters (see 16:19).Tg. Pseudo (תטה משׁפט) Jonathan and ancient rabbinic sources suggest that the reason the widow is shown greater solicitude than aliens and orphans has to do with the fact that holding her garment during the day would “lead to unchastity or to rumors harmful to her reputation” (Tigay [1996] 228, and sources cited on 390 n. 65). On the treatment of the familiar phrase “alien, orphan, and widow” in two separate parts, see also 10:18, the discussion of Melamed (Studies in Bible, 115–53), and the comments on the resultant menorah ah pattern in Form/Structure/Setting above. 19–22 See Ruth 2 and cf. Lev 19:9–10; 23:22, Exod 23:10–11; and Lev 25:2–7. Mayes notes that the phrase “in all the work of your hands” normally appears as a concluding formula ([1981] 327). In this particular law it appears precisely in the middle of the two laws in 24:17–22, which concern the protection of the rights and privileges of the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow in ancient Israel. Moreover, from a prosodic perspective, v 19b functions as a rhythmic bridge connecting vv 19a and 20, which may be read in two different ways in terms of total mora count: (28 + 28 + 29):(19 + 18) or (28 + 28):(29 + 8 + 29).

Explanation The story of Ruth was shaped with this law in view, for she was at the same time an alien, an orphan (she left all her family behind in Moab), and a widow. The fields, olive trees, and vineyards were not to be picked clean. Landowners were obliged to leave a portion of food behind so that those in need could glean from them; and Boaz actually ordered his workers to leave handfuls of grain for Ruth to gather (Ruth 2:16). Such a practice kept the needy from the humiliation of begging for subsistence. The poor were thus able to maintain their dignity by working for their own food, though the owner of the field did not profit directly from their labors. The law itself is framed by parallel references to the motivation for the concern for the poor and vulnerable in ancient Israel: “remember that you were a slave in (the land of) Egypt” (vv 18, 22).

A Remember that you were a slave in Egypt 24:18 B The overlooked grain is for the alien, orphan, and widow 24:19 X The overlooked olives are for the alien, orphan, and widow 24:20 B′ The overlooked grapes are for the alien, orphan, and widow 24:21 A′ Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt 24:22

The phrase “the alien, the orphan, and the widow” appears four times in this law (vv 17, 19, 20, 21). The image here is one of the most picturesque of all the laws of Deuteronomy and continued to influence customs within Christianity for centuries to come, as illustrated by Millet’s famous painting, The Gleaners.

11–12. Limits on Flogging and Not Muzzling the Ox (25:1–4) Bibliography for 25:1–3

Allgeier, A. “Dt. 25, 1–3 im Manchester-Papyrus (PRG 458).” Bib 19 (1938) 1–18. Cohn, H. H. “Flogging.” EncJud 6:1348–49. Glanville, S. R. K., ed. The Legacy of Egypt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1942. 204. Hofbauer, J. “Zu den Textfamilien der Septuaginta im Deuteronomium zu Dt 25, 1–3 nach PRG 458.” ZKT 62 (1938) 385–89. Hoffner, H. A. “Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study.” TynBul 20 (1969) 27–55. Roscher, W. H. “Die Zahl 40 im Glauben, Brauch und Schrifttum der Semiten.” Abhandlungen der philologisch-historische Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909) 93–138. Tigay, J. H. “Some Archaeological Notes on Deuteronomy.” In FS J. Milgrom. 1995. 377. Wilkinson, J. G. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 3 vols. Ed. S. Birch. London: John Murray, 1878. 1:305–8. Bibliography for 25:4 Boecker, H. J. “ ‘Du sollst dem Ochsen, der da drischt, das Maul nicht verbinden.’ Überlegungen zur Wertung der Natur im Alten Testament.” In Fs F. Lang.1978. 72– 89. Borowski, O. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. 63– 65. Carmichael, C. M. “ ‘Treading’ in the Book of Ruth.”ZAW 92 (1980) 248–66, esp. 250– 52. Eslinger, L. “More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws.” VT 34 (1984) 221– 26. Finkelstein, J. J. The Ox That Gored.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981. Haran, M. “Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und das säugende Muttertier.” TZ 41 (1985) 135–59, esp. 153. Henry, M.-L. Das Tier im religiösen Bewusstsein des alttestamentlichen Menschen. Sammlung Gemeinverständlicher Vorträger und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte 220–221. Tübingen: Mohr, 1958. Jacob, E. “Die altassyrische Gesetze und ihr Verhältnis zu den Gesetzen des Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 41 (1925) 319–87, esp. 385–86. Kaiser, W. C. “The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8–10.” JETS 21 (1978) 3–18. Lisowsky, G. “Dtn 25, 4.” In FS L. Rost.1967. 144–52. Miller, M. S., and Miller, J. L. Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 180–81 and illustration 70. Nielsen, E. “ ‘You Shall Not Muzzle an Ox While It Is Treading out the Corn,’ Dt. 25, 4.” In Law, History and Tradition. 1983. 94–105. Noonan, J. T. “The Muzzled Ox.”JQR 70 (1979) 172–75. Pangritz, W. Das Tier in der Bibel. Munich; Basel: Reinhardt, 1963. Weippert, H. “Dreschen und Worfeln.” BRL. 63–64. Yaron, R. “The Goring Ox in Near Eastern Laws.” ILR 1 (1966) 396–406.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Limits on Flogging [(6:5):(5:6)]

1 When there is a dispute / between men / 13 2 and they take it to court / and they render a decision // 16 2 and they declare one / righteous / 11 2_ And they declare the other / guilty // 13 2 2 and it shall be / if the guilty one / is to be flogged // 16 3_ The magistrate shall have him lie down / 11 1 and he shall be given lashes in his presence / 11 1 According to his guilt \ by number // 12 1 3 forty times he may be stricken / but not more // 15 2_ Lest being flogged further than this / to excess / 21 2 2 13 ס // your brother is degraded / in your eyes

Not Muzzling the Ox _2 12 ס // You shall not muzzle an ox / while it is threshing 4

Notes 1.a-a. Omitted in LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT. you shall lay“ , הִ פַּ לְ תּ וֹ לִ פְ נֵ י הֶ ם =) a-a. LXX reads καθιεῖς αῦτὸν ἐναντίον αὐτῶν.2 Prosodic analysis .והפילו השׁפט והכהו לפניו him down before them”) for MT supports MT. 2.b-b. Omitted in LXX.

2.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. ”.and he is degraded“ ,ונקלה he is lightly esteemed,” for MT“ ,ונקל a. SP reads.3

Form/Structure/Setting The laws in Deut 25 are in two parts of unequal length: a group of five laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics (vv 1–16) and the concluding injunction to remember to hate the Amalekites (vv 17–19) for their aggression against the people of Israel in the wilderness, as recorded in Exod 17:8–15. Though the first two of these laws, putting limits on flogging (vv 1–3) and not muzzling an ox when it threshes grain (v 4), make up a single literary unit from a prosodic point of view, they are also separate laws within a five-part concentric structure: A Limits on flogging (Joseph sold into slavery) 25:1–3 B Not muzzling an ox (Joseph in Egypt) 25:4 X Levirate marriage (Judah and Tamar) 25:5–10 B′ Immodest intervention in a fight (Joseph in Egypt) 25:11–12 A′ Honest weights and measures (Israel in the wilderness) 25:13–16

The relationship between these laws in this structure is more easily seen by examining the stories in Genesis that are shaped by them. The outer frame in this structure moves from the law limiting flogging to forty lashes (Deut 25:1–3), which is used to shape the story of Joseph and his brothers in Gen 37, to the law on honest weights and measures (Deut 25:13–16), which shapes the story of Israel in the wilderness en route to Mount Sinai immediately following the exodus from Egypt in Exod 16. The inner frame is made up of two laws (Deut 25:4, 11–12), both of which are used to shape aspects of the stories of Joseph in Egypt in Gen 37–45. These two laws form a frame around the law of the levirate marriage in the center (Deut 25:5–10), which is used to shape the story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38. Though the MT of Deut 25:1–4 is divided in two parts with sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 3 and 4, it is a single literary unit from a prosodic point of view (scanning 6:5:5:6 in accentual stress units). The brief law on not muzzling an ox while it threshes (v 4) functions as a transitional element to move from the Joseph story (Gen 37, 39–50) to that of the episode with Judah and Tamar (Gen 38). The two laws together may be outlined in concentric structural fashion:

A When the decision is rendered that a man is to be flogged 25:1–2a B He shall be flogged by count as his guilt warrants 25:2b X Forty lashes he may be given, but not more 25:3a B′ The man shall not be humiliated by being flogged to excess 25:3b A′ You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing 25:4

In this reading, the law on not muzzling the ox (v 4) is the second half of the outer frame and is to be read over against the account of the decision that a man should be flogged (vv 1–2a). The inner frame spells out the manner in which the sentence is to be carried out and sets specific limits so that the person is not humbled unduly. Forty lashes are the limit, and no more. The manner in which the story is told in Gen 37 suggests that the writer is aware that “only an impartial inquiry, such as would be found in a court, could get to the heart of the matter and decide where to fix the blame” (LNB, 289–90). We learn at the outset that “Joseph brought an ill report of [his brothers] to their father” (Gen 37:2), but we are not told the details. All his brothers found fault with him. Moreover, as Carmichael observed, Reuben pleaded with his brothers at one point not to take his life (Gen 37:21). Carmichael called attention to another significant feature in the narrative of Gen 45. After Joseph had given his brothers grain, he instructed them: “Do not quarrel on the way” (Gen 45:24). “These words recall the quarrel between Joseph and his brothers and one major cause of it, namely, his dream about himself as the upright sheaf standing before the other prostrate ones. At this point in the narrative Joseph the forgotten sheaf has come into his own and can command his brothers” (Carmichael, LNB, 291). The law of the unmuzzled ox is made up of only four words in the Hebrew text (v 4). Carmichael’s arguments for interpreting the verse in a figurative sense, rather than the literal one usually given to it, are convincing; for “from a practical point of view the animal should be muzzled and, having done its work, then be fed. In typical proverbial fashion the impracticality of the injunction catches the hearer’s attention in order to direct it to another meaning” (LNB, 292). The figurative nuance of the forgotten sheaf in the previous law, where Joseph himself becomes the sheaf of grain forgotten for awhile and then remembered, is carried over into the law about the ox as well. An Israelite hearer would have puzzled over the requirement as it applies to a treading ox, for if a treading ox is not muzzled or driven by a whip, it will merely consume the seed it is supposed to be producing in the process of treading. “The oddness of a literal reading of the requirement is the clue that the meaning is to be displaced. In switching from one reading to the other, it is crucial to observe that a third party will have to be involved in getting the unmuzzled ox to produce seed.… A man, left to himself like the ox with the grain, dies without producing offspring. As with the unmuzzled ox, a third party has to be involved. A relative, like the person responsible for attending to the ox, is under an obligation to ensure that seed [progeny] is forthcoming” (Carmichael, LNB, 294). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 25:4 and its larger literary context may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

22 23 45 25:1–4 + = (= 2 × 25:5–12 70 + 52 = 122 26) (= 4 × 25:13–19 68 + 25 = 93 17)

(= 10 × 25:1–19 160 + 100 = 260 26) (= 5 × 25:11–19 85 + 32 = 117 17) (= 2 × 25:13–16 29 + 17 = 46 23) 25:17–18 17 + 6 = 23

24:10– (= 7 × 119 + 100 = 219 25:4 17)

21:10– (= 93 × 929 + 652 = 1,581 25:19 17)

The Hebrew text of the sixth weekly portion in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings from Deuteronomy (21:10–25:19) is indeed a numerical composition from beginning to end, in which the divine-name numbers are carefully woven into the fabric of the text in a variety of ways.

Comment

dispute,” refers to a matter of litigation that is taken “to“ ,ריב In this instance a 3–1 בן ) ”is sentenced “to be flogged (הרשׂע) ”Here “the guilty one .(אל־המשׁפט) ”court lit. he is “a son of the striking”). Flogging was also prescribed as the punishment ; הכות for a man who falsely accused his bride of not being a virgin at the time of their marriage (22:18). Though we are not informed of other circumstances in Israel in which offenses were punished in this way, we do know from ancient Mesopotamian law that flogging was imposed “for such offenses as destroying someone’s house, encroaching on a neighbor’s land, selling persons whom one has distrained because of a debt, defrauding creditors, theft, and changing brands on sheep” (Tigay [1996] 230). The in a number according to his guilt,” goes with the“ ,כדי רשׁעתו במספר statement following words, “forty times he may be stricken but not more.” As Mayes noted ([1981] 327), “forty” is also the amount of punishment in some Middle Assyrian laws (ANET, 181, A §18), while others range from five to one hundred (for specific citations see Tigay [1996] 390 n. 2). On “lest … your brother is degraded in your eyes,” Tigay says, “Perhaps the person being flogged would humiliate himself further by crying or begging hysterically for mercy, or by soiling himself from fright or from the severity of the beating” ([1996] 230). 4 This brief law relating to the ox consists of only three lexical items in the Hebrew text, and there is no ʾatnāḥ. From a prosodic point of view, it is closely related to vv 1– 3, in spite of the sharp difference in content. Oxen “threshed” the grain by trampling the stalks or pulling a threshing sledge over them. Farmers would sometimes “muzzle an ox” to keep it from stopping to eat. The alternative was to freely administer a whip to goad the animal on in its work.

Explanation In the Torah many crimes are mentioned for which no specific punishment is specified. It is supposed that scourging was used at the discretion of the magistrates in these cases. The punishment was administered in open court, under the inspection of the magistrate, and without respect to the rank of the criminal. If some crimes were punished in this manner today, as with judicial caning in Singapore, and capital punishment eliminated, as is the case in numerous other countries, it might be effective in our own nation in curbing flagrant violations of the law. At the same time, it must be remembered that to punish persons commensurate with their crimes does not dishonor them; but to beat them excessively in public does not demonstrate the respect due a fellow human being. In ancient Israel, at least within the context of the laws in Deuteronomy, beating was to be given as punishment in certain cases, and the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed. The law on not muzzling an ox while it threshes grain is cited in 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18 as meaning “the laborer deserves his wages” in reference to compensation for those in the ministry: “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). At the same time, it should be noted that Paul chose not to exercise this right: “we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). Matthew Henry summed up the matter well, long ago, when he said the law in 25:4 teaches us that we must “not only be just, but kind, to all who are employed for our good, not only to maintain but to encourage them, especially those that labour among us in the word and doctrine, and so are employed for the good of our better part” (Exposition of the Old and New Testament 1:670).

13. Levirate Marriage (25:5–10) Bibliography

Ahroni, R. “The Levirate and Human Rights.” In Jewish Law and Current Legal Problems. Ed. N. Rakober. Jerusalem: Library of Jewish Law, 1984. 67–76.Bayliss, M. “The Cult of the Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia.” Iraq 35 (1973) 115–25. Belkin, S. “Levirate and Agnate Marriage in Rabbinic and Cognate Literature.” JQR 60 (1970) 275–329. Bloch-Smith, E. “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains.” JBL 111 (1992) 213– 24. Brichto, H. C.“Kin, Land, Cult, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex.” HUCA 44 (1973) 1– 54. Burrows, M. “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage.”BASOR 77 (1940) 2–15. ———. “Levirate Marriage in Israel.” JBL 59 (1940) 23–33. Campbell, E. F. Ruth. AB 7. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. 160–61.Cardascia, G. “L’Adoption matrimoniale à Babylone et à Nuzi.” Revue historique de droit Français et étranger 37 (1959) 1–16. Carmichael, C. “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man’s Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt.” JBL 96 (1977) 321–36. ———. Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Press, 1979. 65–70. Cruveilhier, P. “Le lévirat chez les hébreux et chez les assyriens.” RB 34 (1925) 524–46. Dahood, M. “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job.” In The Bible and Current Catholic Thought. Ed. J. L. McKenzie. New York: Herder, 1962. 55–74, esp. 70. Daube, D. “Consortium in Roman and Hebrew Law.” Juridical Review 62 (1950) 72–74. ———. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 35–36. ———. “To Be Found Doing Wrong.” In FS E. Volterra.1971. 3–13, esp. 8. Davies, E. W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage.” VT 31 (1981) 138– 44, 257–68. Donner, H. “Adoption oder Legitimation?” OrAnt 8 (1969) 87–119. Emerton, J. “Some Problems in Genesis XXXVIII.” VT 25 (1975) 357–60. Epstein, L. M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942. Falk, Z. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1964. 88, 159. Fensham, F. C. “Widow, Orphan, and Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES 21 (1962) 129–39. Gordis, R. “Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth.” In FS J. M. Myers. 1974. 241– 64. Huehnergard, J. “Biblical Notes on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria).” CBQ 47 (1985) 428–34. Katz, J. “Levirate Marriage (yibbum) and haliẓiah in Post- Talmudic Times.” Tarbiz 51 (1981) 59–106 (Heb.). Kirwen, M. C. African Widows. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangelium. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. 203–4. Koschaker, P. “Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft, und Mutterrecht in Keilschriftrechten.”ZA 41 (1933) 76–80. ———. “Zum Levirat nach hethitischem Recht.” RHA 2.10 (1933) 77–89. Legget, D. A. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention in the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, NY: Mack, 1974. Lehmann, M. R. “Biblical Oaths.” ZAW 81 (1969) 74–92. Lewis, T. J. Cults of the Dead. 1989. Manor, D. W. “A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible.” ResQ 27 (1984) 129–42. Mittelmann, J. Der altisraelitische Levirat. Leipzig: A. Teicher, 1934. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. 1944. 23–55. Neusner, J. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. 5 vols. SJLA33. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Niditch, S. “Legends of Wise Heroes and Heroines.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. 451–63. — ——. “The Wrong Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38.” HTR 72 (1979) 143– 49. Patai, R. Sitte und Sippe in Bibel und Orient. Frankfurt am Main: Ner-Tamid, 1962. 97– 104. Pedersen, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 1926–40. 1:91–96. Phillips, A. “Another Example of Family Law.” VT 30 (1980) 240–45. ———. “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre- Exilic Israel.” VT 23 (1973) 359–61. Pope, M. “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit.” In Ugarit in Retrospect. Ed. G. D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. 159–79. Praag, A. van. Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien.Allard Pierson Stichting Archaeologisch-historische Bijdragen 12. Amsterdam, Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij., 1945. Price, I. M. “The So-called Levirate-Marriage in Hittite and Assyrian Laws.” In Oriental Studies: FS Paul Haupt. Ed. C. Adler. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1926. 268–71. Puuko, A. F. “Die Leviratsehe in den altorientalischen Gesetzen.” ArOr 17.2 (1949) 296–99. Rabinowitz, L. I. “Levirate Marriage and H\alis\ah.” EncJud 11:125. Rengstorf, K. H. Die Re-Investitur des Verlorenen Sohnes in der Gleichniserzählung Jesu Lk 15, 11–32. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 137. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1967. Richter, H.-F. “Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth.” ZAW 95 (1983) 123–26. Rowley, H. H. “The Marriage of Ruth.” In The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. 171– 94. Snaith, N. H. “The Daughters of Zelophehad.” VT 16 (1966) 126–27. Thompson, T., and Thompson, D. “Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth.” VT 18 (1968) 79– 99. Tigay, J. H. “Excursus 23: Levirate Marriage.” In Deuteronomy. 1996. 482–83. Tsevat, M. “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel.” JSS 3 (1958) 237–43. Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel. Tr. J. McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. 37–38. Wegner, J. R. “Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the System of the Mishnah.” Diss., Brown Univ., 1986. Westbrook, R.“The Law of the Biblical Levirate.” RIDA 24 (1977) 65–87. —— —. “The Law of the Biblical Levirate.” In Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. 69–89. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLA Sup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27–44, esp. 28–29.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Levirate Marriage [(4:5):(6:5):(6:6):(5:6):(5:4)]

5 When brothers dwell / together / 13 2 and one of them dies / and he has no son / 17 2_ The dead man’s wife shall not / go outside / to a stranger // 18 3 her husband’s brother / shall go in to her / 14 2_ And he shall take her as his / wife / 13 2 and he shall perform the brother-in-law’s duty // 9 1 6 And it shall be / in regard to the firstborn / 9 2 whom she bears / 6 1_ He will be established / under the name of his dead / brother // 14 3 that his name may not be blotted out / from Israel // 16 2_ 7 And if the man / does not wish / to take / his brother’s wife // 20 4 his brother’s wife shall go out to the gate / to the elders / 21 2_ And she shall say / “My husband’s brother refuses / 15 2 to establish his brother’s name / in Israel / 18 2 he will not perform / a brother-in-law’s duty by me” // 10 2_ 8 And the elders of his city shall summon him / 15 1 and they shall speak to him // 9 1 But if he stands firm and he says / 8 1 “I do not wish / to take her” // 19 2_ 9 Then his brother’s wife shall approach him / 12 1 in the sight of the elders / 11 1 And she shall remove his sandal / from his foot / 15 2 and she shall spit / before his face // 11 2_ And she shall declare / and she shall say / 12 2 “Thus \ let it be done to the man / 13 1 who will not build up / his brother’s house” // 13 2_ 10 And his name shall be called / in Israel // 13 2 _2 9 ס // ”the “house / of the unsandaled one

Notes

”.to her“ ,עליה to her,” for MT“ ,אליה a-a. SP reads.5

the firstborn son”; LXX reads τὸ παιδίον τὸ“ ,הבן הבכור a. SP reads reads.6 πρωτότοκον, “the firstborn son.”

he refuses,” with most Heb. MSS and printed editions, rather“ , מֵ אֵ ן a. Reading.7 . מֵ אֵ י ן than L 7.b. Some Heb. MSS, SP, LXXN, Syr., and Vg. add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis favors MT.

9.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The phrase “levirate marriage” comes from Latin levir, “husband’s brother.” The husband’s brother.” When a man died“ , יָ בָ ם means to do the duty of a יבם verb childless, his brother was to marry the widow. The first son born to them was considered the son of the deceased man from a legal point of view. If the brother refused to do this, he was submitted to a public procedure called “removal of the sandal,” and the woman was free to marry outside the family. The matter is taken up in two other biblical texts: Gen 38 and Ruth 4 (which involves a more distant relative than the brother-in-law). The law on levirate marriage is in the middle of a concentric structural design of the final sixteen laws in the Deuteronomic collection (24:1–25:19), which may be outlined as follows: A Forbidden remarriage and one-year deferral for new husband 24:1–5 B Eight laws protecting the poor and vulnerable 24:6–22 C Limits on flogging and not muzzling an ox while threshing 25:1–4 X Levirate marriage 25:5–10 C′ Improper intervention in a fight 25:11–12 B Honest weights and measures 25:13–16 A′ Remember to hate the Amalekites (YHWH’s Holy War) 25:17–19 The framework in this menorah pattern (A, X, A′) moves from a pair of laws on marriage and war (24:1–5) to a concluding note on YHWH’s Holy War at the time of the exodus from Egypt (25:17–19), with the law on levirate marriage in the center (25:5–10). These four laws display the familiar three-plus-one pattern, in which the concluding reminder to “hate the Amalekites” stands in opposition to the other three laws on specific matters of war and marriage. The remaining twelve laws in this concentric structure move from ten laws on specific matters of social ethics (24:6–25:4) to two symbolic laws (25:11–16), which direct the reader’s attention to the beginning and end of what we have called the first phase of YHWH’s Holy War, the exodus from Egypt, with Joseph in Egypt (25:11–13) and the nation of Israel in Sinai en route to the promised land (25:13–16). See further below, particularly the pivotal role played by the curious verse on having two “stones” of different size in one’s “pouch” (25:13), which verse belongs to both these laws. The law of the levirate marriage in 25:5–10 has no internal structural indicators, other than the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker at the end of v 10 and three instances of direct speech: twice on the part of the woman (vv 7b, 9b), and once on the part of the dead husband’s brother (v 8). Nonetheless, it can be divided into five parts in terms of its prosodic structure: A When a widow has no son, her husband’s brother must take her 25:5a B The firstborn shall be accounted to the dead brother 25:5b–6 X If the man refuses, she announces it at the city gate 25:7 B Ritual of removing the sandal at the city gate 25:8–9a A′ His name shall be called “house of the unsandaled one” 25:9b–10 In this reading, the outside frame presents the situation: if a widow has no son, her husband’s brother is obliged to father a son in his dead brother’s name, or his own name shall be called “house of the unsandaled one.” If the man refuses to do the duty of the levir, the woman is to make a public declaration at the city gate and to perform there the ritual of removing the sandal. do“ ,יבם sister-in-law,” and the verb“ , יְ בֵ מָ ה brother-in-law,” and“ , יָ בָ ם The nouns appear a total of seven times in 25:5–10within the following ”, יָ בָ ם the duty of a concentric structure: 25:5b יבמה יבא עליה ”A “Her brother-in-law shall go in to her

ולקחה לו לאשׁה He shall take her and do the levir’s“ B 25:5c duty” ויבמה

לא יחפץ … לקחת He does not wish to take his“ C 25:7a sister-in-law” את־יבמתו “His sister-in-law shall go to X 25:7b ועלתה יבמתו השׁערה ”the gate מאן יבמי להקים … C′ “My brother-in-law refuses” 25:7c שׂם “He will not perform the levir’s B′ 25:7d לא אבה יבמי ”duty “His sister-in-law shall go up to him A′ 25:9a ונגשׁה יבמתו אליו ”…

, יָ בָ ם The outer frame in this structure moves from a presentation of the legal duty of the sister-in-law,” in vv 9–10. The man’s“ , יְ בֵ מָ ה husband’s brother,” in v 5 to that of the“ responsibility is to take his brother’s wife and father a child in his name. If he refuses to do this, the woman’s duty is to appear before the elders at the city gate to perform the symbolic act of “removing the sandal” (v 7). The innermost frame presents the refusal in v 7a, which ( יְ בֵ מָ ה) ”on the part of the husband’s brother to take his “sister-in-law refusal is set over against the declaration on her part in v 7c that her “brother-in-law” has refused to do his duty as a levir. The next frame contains the two occurrences ( יָ בָ ם) both in the piel, vv 5c, 7d). The only other occurrence of this verb in) יבם of the verb the Hebrew Bible is in Gen 38:8, the narrative that presents this law in story form. name,” are also nested in a carefully“ ,שׁם brother,” and“ ,אח The key words constructed concentric pattern: 25:5a כי־ישׁבו אחים יחדו ”A “When brothers dwell together

יקום על־שׁם אחיו He shall establish his dead“ B 25:6a brother’s name” המת

ולא־ימחה שׁמו That his name is not blotted out“ X 25:6b in Israel” מישׂראל

להקים לאחיו שׂם To establish his brother’s name in“ B′ 25:7b Israel” בישׁראל

אשׁר לא־יבנה את־בית He who will not build up his brother’s“ A′ 25:9b house” אחיו

The outer frame in this structure moves from the opening introduction of the story about certain brothers who live together, one of whom dies without a son (v 5), to the conclusion in which the wife of the dead brother makes her declaration about her husband’s brother: “ ‘Let it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s and his name shall be called in Israel the ‘house of the ;’[את־בית אחיו] house unsandaled one’ ” (vv 9b–10). The inner frame includes both of the key words as we move from an account of the levir’s duty to establish a name for his dead brother (v 6a), to the woman’s announcement that he has refused “to establish his brother’s name in Israel” (v 7b). The center of the structure states the purpose of the law: “that his name may not be blotted out from Israel” (v 6b). The word “Israel” appears three times in 25:5–10; these occurrences form a framework within which the levir repeats his desire not to fulfill his duty:

ולא־ימחה שׁמו That his name not be blotted out from“ A 25:6b Israel” מישׂראל

לא יחפץ … לקחת -He does not wish to take his sister“ B 25:7a in-law” את־יבמתו להקים לאחיו שׁם To establish his brother’s“ X 25:7b name in Israel” בישׂראל

ואמר לא חפצתי He declares: ‘I do not wish to take“ B′ 25:8b her’ ” לקחתה

25:10 ונקרא שׁמו בישׂראל ”… A′ “His name shall be called in Israel

The outer frame in this construction moves from a statement of the purpose of the law, that a man’s name not be blotted out in Israel (v 6b), to a new name given to the man who refused to do his duty: the “unsandaled one” (v 10). The inner frame places the man’s refusal as reported by the woman (v7a) over against a reiteration of that refusal on the part of the man himself (v 8b). In the center again we find the purpose of the law: to establish his brother’s name in Israel (v 7b). The connection between the law of the levirate marriage (25:5–10) and the story of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar in Gen 38 is obvious. Onan refused to do the duty of a levir and was punished by death. His motivation for going through the motions but “spilling his seed to the ground” is presumably greed, as Carmichael has noted, for in the circumstances he would retain his dead brother’s portion of the estate (LNB, 296). According to the law, if the brother refuses, the widow takes off his sandal, spits “before his face”—that is, on the ground in front of him—and declares, “Thus let it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.” The description of Onan his in 25:9, for (לפניו) ”semen on the ground” is a graphic interpretation of “before his face “the shoe represents the female genitals, the foot the male organ, and the spitting v 9) is taken with the sense of “to) חלץ semen” (Carmichael, LNB, 296). The verb loose, withdraw,” in this instance from sexual intercourse. Carmichael also links the law with the preceding figurative law about not muzzling an “ox” in its “sexual treading”: “for without a shoe the man cannot tread in order to produce seed for his brother” (LNB, 297). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 25:5–10 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

25:5 17 + 7 = 24 25:5–6 26 + 11 = 37

25:5–7 33 + 26 = 59

25:7–10 27 + 34 (= 2 × 17) = 61

There are 17 words before ʾatnāḥ in the opening verse presenting the legal situation: a man’s brother dies without leaving an heir (v 5). The basic law is completed by adding a description of the law’s purpose to provide an heir “under the name of his dead brother” (v 6). The numerical composition is carried out with 26 words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 5–6. The problem arising should the brother choose not to exercise his duty is presented in v 7 in such a manner that there are 26 words after ʾatnāḥ in vv 5–7. The ceremony carried out in the case of such a refusal is described in vv 8–10 in a carefully constructed manner so that there are now 34 (= 2 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ in vv 7–10. Once again, the ancient scribes have woven the divine name into the very fabric of the Hebrew text in their numerical composition, this time in the form of a simple chiasm: 17 (v 5) / 26 (vv 5–6) / 26 (vv 5–7) / 17 (vv7–10).

Comment 5 On the basis of Gen 13:6 and 36:7, Tigay says “dwelling together” means living close enough to share the same pastureland, and that “this may mean that in biblical times the marriage was obligatory only if the levir’s home, where the widow and her future child would reside, was close to that property” ([1996] 231). Subsequent Jewish as “offspring”) interpreted the words “he בן tradition (including LXX, which rendered has no son” to mean children of either sex because of the law on the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters in Num 27:1–11. The purpose of levirate marriage was to avoid the loss of property to the family. The injunction “he shall take her as his wife” appears to contradict texts in Lev 18:16 and 20:21, which prohibit marriage between a brother- and sister-in-law. The ancient rabbis argued that Leviticus states the general principle and the law in Deuteronomy applies only when a married man dies without children. Tigay maintains that this conclusion has support in parallel texts of ancient Hittite laws, which place the prohibition of relations with one’s brother’s wife and the levirate law adjacent to each other, showing that the latter is the exception to the former ([1996]232). 6 The statement that “the firstborn … will be established under the name of his dead brother” means that the child is legally the son and heir of the deceased. “According to Sefer Ha-H\innukh, the offspring of the levirate marriage can even be thought of as the biological offspring of the deceased man, since, when the child’s mother married the deceased man she had become ‘bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh’ (Gen. 2:23), and since the husband’s brother is also partly his brother’s flesh” (Tigay [1996] 232). 7 The man may not “wish to take his sister-in-law” as wife for personal, familial, or financial reasons. The text in Gen 38:9 states simply that “since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.” To “establish a name for his brother” means to sire an heir (cf. Gen 38:8: “raise up offspring for your brother”). 8–10 The significance of the details of the symbolic action are not explained. Tigay cites a parallel practice “among the ancient Germans, who symbolized the giving up of property and heritable rights by removing the shoe” ([1996] 233). The woman “shall remove his sandal from his foot, and she shall spit before his face.” The meaning of the translated here “before his face,” is ambiguous. Some translate it “in his ,בפניו term face,” and others interpret it as spitting on the ground in front of the man. Support for the latter reading is found in Carmichael’s conclusion: “The shoe represents the female genitals, the foot the male organ, and the spitting semen” (LNB, 296), for Onan spilled his semen on the ground. The name “house of the unsandaled one” is a pejorative title to degrade the brother.

Explanation The purpose of the law was to keep the inheritance separate and to preserve the genealogies distinct, as well as to provide for the destitute widow when the estate devolved on the next heir. Though the Sadducees cited their law to Jesus in a dispute about resurrection (Matt 22:23–33), the law of the levirate marriage concerns matters of social and economic justice in this world brought on by premature death, not in relationships in another world beyond death.

14. Improper Intervention in a Fight (25:11–13) Bibliography

Carmichael, C. M. “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT 32 (1982) 395–415. ———. “On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws.” HTR 69 (1976) 1–7. Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I.” Bib 44 (1963) 289–303. Eslinger, L. “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy xxv 11–12.” VT 31 (1981) 269–81. Goodfriend, E. “Could Keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 Actually Refer to Canine?” In FS J. Milgrom. 1995. 381–97. Gordon, C. H. “A New Akkadian Parallel to Dt 25, 11–12.” JPOS 15 (1935) 29– 34. Kaufman, S. A. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law.” MAARAV 1.2 (1979) 105– 58.Lieberman, S. Texts and Studies. New York: Ktav, 1974. 37–43. Paul, S. M. “Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Laws.” In Religion and Law. 1990. 336–37.Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law. 1970. 94. Rendsburg, G. “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P.’ ” JANESCU 12 (1980) 65–80, esp. 68. Roth, E.“Does the Tora Punish Impudence? A Note to Dt 25, 11s.” In Études Orientales à la memoire de Paul Hirschler. Ed. O. Komlos. Budapest, 1950. 116–21. Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness That Was Babylon. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1962. 282. Tigay, J. H. “Excursus 24: Improper Intervention in a Fight.” In Deuteronomy.1996. 484–86. Weinfeld, M. DDS. 292–93.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Improper Intervention in a Fight [6:6] [5]

11 When men get into a fight together / a man and his brother / 22 2 and the wife of one / comes near / to rescue her husband / 23 3 from the power of his assailant // 7 1_ And she stretches forth her hand / 10 1 and she seizes him / by his genitals // 12 2 12 Then you shall cut off \ her hand // 10 1 _2 11 ס // your eyes / shall show no pity 13 You shall not have / in your “pouch” / 11 2 “two stones” / 7 1 _2 11 ס // a large one / and a small one

Notes lit. “by that which excites , במבשׁיו in his flesh,” for MT“ ,בבשׂרו a-a. SP reads.11 shame.”

12.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. your“ ,עיניך b-b. A few Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and LXX read.12 your [pl.] eyes”; LXX“ ,עיניכם your eye”; Tg. Ps.-J. reads“ ,עינך eyes,” for MT -.on her.” The Numeruswechsel is restored here with Tg. Ps“ ,(עליה =) adds ἐπʼ αὐτῇ J. as lectio difficilior.

Form/Structure/Setting Prosodic analysis reveals that v 13 functions as a rhythmic bridge connecting this law with the law on honest weights and measures that follows and belongs to both of them. Moreover, the content of this verse displays the quality of what is elsewhere called “Janus parallelism,” in that the meaning shifts as the reader moves from one context to the other. In terms of prosodic structure, the content of Deut 25 as a whole may be outlined in a concentric structure: Limits on flogging and not muzzling the A (Joseph in Egypt) 25:1–4 ox B Levirate marriage (Judah and Tamar) 25:5–10 25:11– X Improper intervention in a fight (Joseph in Egypt) 13 25:13– B′ Honest weights and measures (Israel in Sinai) 16 (YHWH’s Holy 25:17– A′ Remembering Amalekite aggression War) 19

In this reading the narrative stories associated with the framework of the laws in the above structure (A, X, A′) move from the “prelude” to the epic story of YHWH’s Holy War in which Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers (25:1–4), to a cup,” in“ ,כוס pouch,” of v 13—read as“ ,כיס reflection on a still further meaning of the narrative of the dream of Pharaoh’s cupbearer in Gen 40:11–21—and the beginning of the episode that will bring Joseph’s brothers to Egypt as well, and then to the first battle of YHWH’s Holy War in the wilderness of Sinai against the Amalekites (25:17– 19). The focus of the inner frame of this structure, in this particular reading, associates the law of the levirate marriage (25:5–10) with the law on honest weights and measures (25:13–16). Since the imagery of the second of these two laws evokes that of God’s provision for his people in their flight from Egypt to Mount Sinai in Exod 14– 18 (remembered in the Festival of Passover), it is not difficult to see how the beautiful story of Ruth was eventually shaped by the law of the levirate marriage in Deut 25:5– 10 to explore God’s provision for “his people” (now enlarged to include Moab) in the annual celebration of the Feast of Weeks. The inclusion of the “enemy” nations within the “assembly of YHWH,” at the level of allusion in the story of Ruth, anticipates the eschatological assembly of the nations in Jerusalem at the Festival of Booths (Sukkoth). The story of YHWH’s Holy War thus moves through the three major moments in the festal calendar: from the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover (and the exodus from slavery in Egypt; 25:1–4), to the Festival of Weeks (25:5–10 and the book of Ruth), to the Festival of Booths (by way of theological anticipation, when the nations are gathered with Israel in Jerusalem, the city of David). The boundaries of 25:11–13 are marked by sĕtûmāʾ layout markers (after vv 12 and 13) and the Numeruswechsel in v 12, which is restored on the basis of Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan in v 12b. A further indication of structure is the appearance of the second singular verbal form at the beginning of v 12, which has been absent since 25:4 (on not muzzling the ox). The prosodic analysis suggests that v 13 belongs with vv 11–12, though it is also an essential part of the following law on honest weights and measures (vv 13–16). It seems best to interpret v 13 as an example of Janus parallelism: the verse takes on a different meaning when read with what precedes it than when read with what follows (for an instructive example of this phenomenon elsewhere in the Pentateuch, see D. L. Christensen, “Janus Parallelism inGen. 6:3,” HS 27 [1986] 20–24). When read with vv 11–12, the “stones” become the testes of the man in v 11, in parallel with the statement: “she seizes him by his genitals,” as suggested by Goodfriend (FS J. Milgrom [1995] 394). When read with vv 14–15, the meaning shifts sharply as the “stones” become weights, in parallel with the two kinds of measures of v 14. On the phenomenon of a verse functioning as a bridge connecting two sections and belonging to both, see also 23:1 and 24:5. A number of other reasons for juxtaposing vv 11–12 and 13 have been suggested. Goodfriend cites one of her students, Shannon Gordon, who noted “that the common feature of the two situations described is the unfair advantage taken of the injured parties, the combatant who is taken by surprise by the wife of his fellow and the person who trades with the user of unjust weights.” Goodfriend’s discussion of Jacob ben Asher’s suggestion in his commentary Ba˓al ha-Ṭurim is also worthy of note: “he derives the teachings that one should not look at one’s own nakedness, and alternatively, that one should not be too preoccupied with money, i.e., the contents of one’s pockets. He also suggests that the placing of the laws together offers proof for the rabbinic position that monetary compensation (inferred from the reference to pockets and weights), and not mutilation, was the intention of v. 12”(FS J. Milgrom, 394 n. 58). Kaufman (MAARAV 1.2 [1979] 142–43) suggests that the law in vv 11–12 is connected with the first part of the tenth commandment, concerning the coveting of one’s neighbor’s wife (5:21a), whereas v 13 is concerned with the second part of that commandment, concerned with coveting a neighbor’s property (5:21b). The law of improper intervention in a fight, as it appears in 25:11–13, may be outlined as follows: A If two brothers are fighting and she approaches 25:11a B The wife of one of them comes to deliver her husband 25:11b X And she seizes the man by his genitals 25:11c B You shall cut off her hand, your eye shall show no pity 25:12 A′ You shall not have “two stones” in your “pouch” 25:13 The issue at hand is the specific action taken by the woman in seizing the man by his genitals in her attempt to come to her husband’s assistance in the fight (v 11c). The outer frame moves from the situation at the outset in which two brothers are engaged in a fight (v 11a), and concludes with a double entendre on the “two stones in a pouch” (v 13). For this shameful action, she is to suffer corporal punishment by having the offensive hand cut off (v12a). The severity of the punishment invites a symbolic interpretation along the lines suggested by Carmichael (LNB [1985] 297–99): the startling shift in imagery also marks a corresponding shift in the narrative associated with this law, as we move from the stories of Joseph and Judah in Gen 37–50 to stories of Israel’s experiences in the wilderness en route from Egypt to Mount Sinai in the days of Moses as recorded in Exod 17:8–15 and the battle with the Amalekites (which is shaped by the law in Deut 25:17–19 to hate the Amalekites). The law of 25:11–13 was used to shape certain details of the narrative in Gen 38 of the episode with Judah and Tamar. “Her mode of action requires that she pursue him sexually; in crude terms, she goes after his genitals” (Carmichael, LNB, 299). The severity of the punishment in the law is mirrored in Judah’s order: “Bring her out, and let her be burned” (Gen 38:24). The presence of the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker and the Numeruswechsel at this point in the law of Deut 25:11–13 serves a disjunctive function, which mirrors that of the narrative in Genesis as well, as we move from Gen 38 to Gen 39–44. The connection between Deut 25:13 and the corresponding narrative in Gen 42:25– his sack,” in Gen“ ,שׂקו) and 44:1–13 may be shown by the story about the sacks 35 42:25, 27, 35) of grain in which Joseph twice returned his brothers’ money, and in which his own silver cup was placed (אמתחת) ”Benjamin’s “sack ,כיס Carmichael, LNB, 299–303). The word for “pouch” in the law of Deut 25:13 is) sack,” which appears“ ,שׂק which appears nowhere else in the Pentateuch. The word four times in Gen 42:25–35 and also in 37:34 in reference to the “sackcloth” that Jacob put on in his grief over the “death” of Joseph as reported by his brothers after they had sold him into slavery. The words in the Genesis narrative that correspond to the “bag” of the law in Deut 25:13 are apparently used with precision. A connection was ך :in the form of a chiasm שׂק and כיס apparently intended between the consonants in ,אמתחת Moreover, it is interesting to note the distribution of the term .שׂ ק // ס “sack,” which appears twice in Gen 42:27–28 and seven times in Gen 44:1–12, but nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The distribution of the seven occurrences :in 44:1–12 are as follows אמתחת of Gen A “Fill their sacks” 44:1 אמתחת האנשׁים

אמתחתו Money in each sack” + “my cup in“ B 44:1–2 Benjamin’s” אמתחת +

44:8 אמתחתינו ”X “We found money in our sacks אמתחתו Money in each sack” / “each opened“ B′ 44:11 his sack” אמתחתו /

44:12 באמתחת בנימן ”A′ “Cup found in Benjamin’s sack

The outer frame moves from the words of Joseph, “Fill the men’s sacks with food” (v 1), to the search in which Joseph’s “cup was found in Benjamin’s sack” (v 12). In the center is the use of the word with the first-person plural suffix, in reference to their first trip to purchase food in Egypt (v 8). The inner frame contains four occurrences of the אמתחת ,three of which have the third singular suffix and the fourth ,אמתחת word refers to Benjamin, “the smallest.” It should be noted that the concluding word ,הקטן ”.and small“ ,וקטנה of the law in Deut 25:13 is The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 25:11–13, which is to read within the larger literary structure of25:5–13, may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

25:5– 53 + 45 = 98 10 25:11– 17 + 7 = 24 12 25:11– 23 + 9 = 32 13

25:5– (= 5 76 + 54 = 130 13 × 26)

25:5– (= 2 70 + 52 = 122 12 × 26) 25:9– (= 2 31 + 21 = 52 12 × 26)

There are 17 words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 11–12, the law on improper intervention on the part of a woman in the defense of her husband. When these verses are combined with the verse on the “two stones” in the “pouch” (v 13), vv 11–13 total 32 words, and 23 glory.” And the“ ,כבוד words before ʾatnāḥ—the two alternative numbers for the word total number of words in vv 5–13 comes to 130 (= 5 × 26). Moreover, the divine-name number 26 is woven into the text in two additional ways when vv 11–12 are combined with the preceding law on levirate marriage (25:5–10): there are 52 (= 2 × 26) words after ʾatnāḥ in vv 5–12, and a total of 52 (= 2 × 26) words in vv 9–12

Comment 11–12 Though the law on improper intervention in a fight complements the laws of Exod 21:18–19, 22–25, which also deal with injuries caused by men fighting, it is without any real parallel. Though a Middle Assyrian law (ANET, 181, A §8, quoted by Tigay [1996] 485) is often cited as a parallel to this law, important factors make the law in Deuteronomy unique and puzzling. The Assyrian law speaks of a brawl in which the woman injures a man by crushing his testicle(s). In the biblical account the fight involves two brothers, one of whom is the husband of the woman. The woman seizes the other man by his genitals in an attempt to save her husband from the power of his assailant. Moreover, nothing is said as to the nature of any injury inflicted by the woman. Weinfeld argues that a second text from Nuzi, which C. H. Gordon presented as a parallel (JPOS 15 [1935] 29–34), is not clear enough to draw any conclusions (DDS, 293). The expression “a man and his brother” indicates that both parties in this conflict are Israelites. The wife of one of them seeks “to rescue her husband” by grasping the by his genitals,” literally “by what excites shame.” The“ ,במבשׁיו opponent punishment, “you shall cut off her hand,” is severe and without parallel in the Bible for mandating mutilation as punishment apart from the law of talion. It may be that the seems to יד principle of lex talionis is in play here in a figurative sense, for the word have been used as a euphemism for the male sexual organ in Isa 57:8 (and other texts, e.g.,Cant 5:4 [see M. Pope, Song of Songs (1977) 523]; 1QS 7:13; CTA 23.33–35, 46– 47). “It may be that this very particular piece of casuistic law is intended as an example of how lex talionis was able to be interpreted when it could not be applied literally” (Craigie [1976] 316). The peculiar nature of the crime and the severity of its punishment led to attempts within traditional Jewish circles to mitigate the punishment by interpreting “cut off the hand” to mean the presumed amount of the fine, that is, the value of the woman’s hand (Tigay [1996] 234). Cutting off the hand remains a common punishment for certain crimes in and other parts of the Arab world. is read as “two stones,” one of which is larger than the אבן ואבן The phrase 13 other—that is, a description of the male testes (Goodfriend, FS J. Milgrom, 394). As one hears the content of v 14, however, which is in perfect poetic parallelism, the imagery shifts quickly to that of business ethics with two kinds of weights and measures.

Explanation Like the law of the insubordinate son (21:18–21) and the law on premarital unchastity (22:20–21), there is little evidence that the law on improper intervention in a fight was ever enforced. Once again, we probably have here a law that was primarily pedagogical in its intent, though perhaps more in terms of symbolic meaning in relation to the reading of related narrative material in Genesis than a warning in terrorem to shape specific behavior. In this respect the close relationship between the law itself and v 13 on the “pouch” with its two stones, one large and the other small, merits reflection and comment. When understood within the larger context of the telling of YHWH’s Holy War within the context of the festivals of ancient Israel, the law on improper intervention in a fight takes on deeper meaning. If Israel is taken as the wife, and her husband (YHWH) is seen to be engaged in mortal combat with the Enemy in the realm of spiritual warfare, an important lesson emerges. YHWH does not need our assistance in that combat. Moreover, insistence on our part to get involved in the struggle will result in great pain and suffering on our part, which will leave us permanently maimed. The battle belongs to YHWH; and we must learn to trust him and remain as an observer to that conflict, even when the immediate course of the titanic struggle appears to be going against our self-centered interests.

15. Honest Weights and Measures (25:13–16) Bibliography

Aharoni, Y. “A 40-Shekel Weight with a Hieratic Numeral.” BASOR 201 (1971) 35–36. —— —. “The Use of Hieratic Numerals in Hebrew Ostraca and the Shekel Weights.” BASOR 184 (1966) 13–19. Briend, J. “Bible et archéologie.” MDB 75 (1992) 38, fig. 34. Cazelles, H. “De l’idéologie royale.” In FS T. H. Gaster. 1973. 59–73, esp. 63. Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I.” Bib 44 (1963) 289–303, esp. 291. Diringer, D. “The Early Hebrew Weights Found at Lachish.” PEQ (1942–43) 85–86. ———. “Weights.” In DOTT. 227– 30. Goodfriend, E. A. “Could Keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 Actually Refer to a Canine?” InFS J. Milgrom. 1995. 394–95. Kerkhof, V. I. “An Inscribed Weight from Shechem.” BASOR 184 (1966) 20–21. Petrie, W. M. F. “Balance.” In Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. J. Hastings. 5 vols. New York: Scribner, 1902–4. 1:234. Pilcher, E. J. “Hebrew Weights in the Book of Samuel.” PEQ 48 (1916) 77–85. ———.“Weights of Ancient Palestine.” PEQ 44 (1912) 178–95. Powell, M. A. “Weights and Measures.” ABD 6:897– 908. Pritchard, J. B. “Inscribed Weight.” In Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1959. 29– 30. Rendsburg, G. “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P.’ ” JANESCU 12 (1980) 65–80 (68). Scott, R. B. Y. “The NS\P Weights from Judah.” BASOR 200 (1970) 62–66. ——— . “The Scale Weights from Ophel.” PEQ 97 (1965) 128–39. ———. “Weights and Measures in the Bible.” BA 22 (1959) 22–40. Sellers, O. R. “Balances.” IDB 1:342–43. Spaer, A. “A Group of Iron Age Stone Weights.” IEJ 32 (1982) 251. Stern, E. “Weights and Measures.” EncJud 16:376–88. Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel. 1961. 199. Wambacq, B. N. “De Mensuris in S. Scriptura.” VD 32 (1954) 266–74, 325–34. ———. “De Ponderibus in S. Scriptura.” VD 29 (1951) 341–50.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Honest Weights and Measures [(5:5):5:(5:5)]

13 You shall not have / in your bag / two kinds of weights // 18 3 _2 11 ס // larger / and smaller 14 You shall not have / in your house / two kinds of measures // 20 3 larger / and smaller // 11 2_ 15 A full and honest weight / you shall keep / 15 2 a full / and honest measure / you shall keep // 17 3_ In order that your days may be long / 14 1 in / the land / that YHWH your God / 19 3 is giving you // 6 1 16 For an abomination / to YHWH your God / 15 2 is anyone doing these things // 8 1 _2 9 ס // anyone / doing injustice

Notes

your God,” is omitted here in some Heb. MSS, Cairo“ ,אלהיך a-a. The term.16 Geniza fragments, and OL texts.

Form/Structure/Setting The law on honest weights and measures (25:13–16) completes the second of two five-part groups of laws on humanitarian and social ethics (24:6–16 and 25:1–16). As shown in the discussion above, the laws of Deut 24–25 may be outlined in a simple five-part concentric structure:

A Framework: laws on marriage and war 24:1–5 B Laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics, part one 24:6–16 X Summary law on protecting the sojourner, orphan, and widow 24:17–22 B Laws on humanitarian concerns and social ethics, part two 25:1–16 A′ Framework: law on YHWH’s Holy War (Amalekite aggression) 25:17–19

Within this structure, the second group of laws on humanitarian and social ethics (25:1– 16) was outlined above in Form/Structure/Setting on Deut 25:1–4. The law in Deut 25:13–16 focuses on business ethics, at least in terms of the plain meaning of the text. At the same time, it should be noted that the narrative in Exod 16, which is shaped by this law, is transitional in nature, with its focus on the people of Israel moving from the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 14–15), in the exodus from slavery in Egypt, en route to Mount Sinai and to receiving the Ten Commandments (Exod 19–20). The law on honest weights and measures (25:13–16) is divided into two parts by means of sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 13 and 16, a situation that does not seem to match the content; for vv 13 and 14 are in perfect parallelism from a poetic point of view. Moreover, the prosodic analysis reveals an unusual pattern, somewhat like the 7:4:7 accentual stress unit in 24:19–20, in that the law in 25:13–16 can also be scanned (5:5):5:(5:5), with v 15afunctioning as a bridge between two subunits. But this would necessitate ignoring the sĕtûmāʾ marker after v 13, which normally indicates a significant structural break. As I suggested in the discussion of the law on improper intervention in a fight (25:11–13), v 13 belongs with what both precedes it and follows it. Moreover, when vv 11–13 and 14–16 are read as parallel rhythmic structures, the total mora counts are 124 and 128, respectively. In other words,25:11–16 is carefully arranged in two parallel structural units, which are virtually equal in length from a prosodic point of view. At the same time, v 13certainly belongs with what follows, and vv 13–15a can also be scanned as three parallel units in terms of both mora count (29 + 31 + 32) and content. In short, 25:13 is a rhythmic bridge connecting the two laws and belonging to both of them, much like 23:1 and 24:5. When the law in Deut 25:13–16 is outlined in concentric fashion, we are able to see more clearly the relationship between the law and the narrative: A You shall not have two kinds of weights in your bag 25:13 B You shall not have two kinds of measures in your house 25:14 ( איפה שׁלמה וצדק) X You shall keep honest weights and measures 25:15a B In order that your days may be long in the land 25:15b A′ Doing injustice is an abomination to YHWH 25:16 The outer frame in this structure sets the issue of “two kinds of weights in your bag” כל ) ”in v 13 over against the concluding phrase, “anyone doing injustice (בכיסך) v 16). The inner frame is in the form of an extended poetic line: You shall ,עשׂה עול not keep two kinds of measures (v 14), if you want your days to be long in the land (v 15b). In the center of the above structure (v 15a) is a summary statement in poetic parallelism:

;you shall keep (אבן) ”A full and honest “weight .you shall keep (איפה) ”a full and honest “measure Carmichael argued that this couplet is related to the narrative of Exod 16, when God provided bread for the wilderness in the form of the mysterious manna (LNB, 302). The ephah,” provides the key, for the narrative of the manna concludes with“ ,איפה term the comment: “An omer is the tenth part of an ephah” (Exod 16:36). In this story it made no difference whether the measure was an honest one: “The people of Israel did so; they gathered, some more, some less” (16:17). God saw to it that the people kept “a ”a tenth of an “ephah—(עמר) ”full and honest measure”—namely, an “omer .(16:36, איפה) The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in Deut 25:13–16, within its larger literary context in 25:1–19, may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

25:1–4 22 + 23 = 45 25:5–6 26 + 11 = 37

(= 2 25:7– 27 + 34 × = 61 10 17) 25:11– 85 (= 5 × 17) + 32 = 117

19

(= 25:1– 160 + 100 = 260 10 × 19 26)

25:11– 17 + 7 = 24 12 (= 2 25:13– 29 + 17 = 46 × 16 23) 25:11– 46 (= 2 × 23) + 24 = 70 16

25:13– 68 (= 4 × 17) + 25 = 93 19

There are 17 words after ʾatnāḥ in 25:13–16 (the law on honest weights and measures) and a total of 46 (= 2 × 23) words, numbers that suggest that the ancient scribes made .(or 26 17 = יהוה) of YHWH (23 = כבוד) ”their numerical composition to the “glory The law on improper intervention in a fight (25:11–12), which has 17 words before ʾatnāḥ, was attached. In 25:11–16 there are 46 (= 2 × 23) words before ʾatnāḥ. The concluding reminder to remember to “hate the Amalekites” in 25:17–19 was appended to the law on honest weights and measures (vv 13–16) to give a larger literary structure (vv 13–19), which has 68 (= 4 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ. These laws were integrated into the still larger literary context of 25:1–19, which has a total of 260 (= 10 × 26) words, a fitting number for this concluding section of the literary expansion on the Ten Commandments in 11:26–25:19.

Comment 13 See the Comment on 25:11–13. For parallel legislation on weights and measures, see Lev 19:35–37 and the sixteenth chapter of the “Instructions of Amenemope” (ANET, 423). On parallels in Mesopotamia, see H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York: Praeger, 1969) 282 (cited in Craigie [1976] 316 n. 16). .איפה ואיפה The phrase “two kinds of measures” interprets Hebrew 16–14 was a unit of capacity in vessels designed to hold grain. The positioning of איפה An the phrase “a full and honest weight/measure” at the beginning of each of the parallel lines in v 15a is for emphasis. The motive clause “in order that your days may be long in the land” is essentially the same as the motive clause in the center of the Ten Commandments in 5:16b. Long life is the reward God grants to those who obey his commandments. The statement that “an abomination to YHWH your God is anyone doing these things” concludes the civil and criminal laws of Deuteronomy (12:1–25:16). Attention now shifts back to the subject of proper worship, following a brief digression on matters of Holy War (25:17–19).

Explanation The law on honest weights and measures (25:13–16) is the final law dealing with matters of civil law in Deut 12–25, and its parallel in Lev 19:35–36functions as the conclusion to the laws of holiness in Lev 19 in a similar manner. Amos also scorned those who “make the ephah small and the shekel great, and deal deceitfully with false balances” (Amos 8:5; cf. also Mic 6:11; Hos 12:7; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23). Jesus spoke to the same issue in his emphasis on honesty in the sense of utter sincerity as the hallmark of character: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (Matt 5:37). The motivation behind this law is transparent. Justice and equity lead toward God’s blessing, “that your days may be long in the land that YHWH your God is giving you” (v 15). By contrast, deceitful actions on our part are “an abomination to YHWH your God”(v 16), and thus expose us to God’s curse.

16. Remember to Hate the Amalekites (25:17–19) Bibliography

Abramsky, S. “Amalekites.” EncJud 2:787–91. Braulik, G. “Some Remarks on the Deuteronomistic Conception of Freedom and Peace.” In The Theology of Deuteronomy. Tr. U. Lindblad. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1994. 87–98. Brueggemann, W. “Weariness, Exile and Chaos (A Motif in Royal Theology).”CBQ 34 (1972) 19–38 (22). Carmichael, C. M. “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo.” VT 19 (1969) 273–89 (278). Christensen, D. L. Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1989. Coats, G. W. “Moses Versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exodus 17:8–16.” In Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 29–41. Dahan, G. “Les interprétations juives dans les commentaires du Pentateuque de Pierre le Chantre.” In FS B. Smalley. 1985. 131–55. Foresti, F. The Rejection of Saul in the Perspective of the Deuteronomistic School: A Study of 1 Sam 15 and Related Texts. Studia Theologica-Teresianum 5. Rome: Edizioni del Teresianum, 1984. Grønbaek, J. H. “Juda und Amalek: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu Exodus 17, 8–16.” ST 18 (1964) 26–45, esp. 40– 42. Hostetter, E. C. Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine’s Pre-Israelite Peoples. BIBAL Diss. Series 3. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1995. 85– 89. L’Hour, J. “Les interdits To˓eba dans le Deutéronome.” RB 71 (1964) 481–503, esp. 499. Robinson, B. P. “Israel and Amalek: The Context of Exodus 17.8–16.” JSOT 32 (1985) 15–22. Roth, W. “The Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-Critical Study.” BR21 (1976) 5–14. Sarna, N. “The Battle with the Amalekites.” In Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1986. 120–26. Schuil, A.Amalek: Onderzoek naar oorsprong en ontwikkeling van Amaleks rol in het Oude Testament. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1997. Stern, P. D. “A Window on Ancient Israel’s Religious Experience: The Re-investigated and Re-interpreted.” Ph.D. diss., New York Univ., 1989. 102– 3. Waldman, N. M.“The Sin of Amalek in Bible and Midrash.” DD 11 (1982–83) 77– 81. Weinfeld, M. “The Fear of God.” In DDS. 274–81, esp. 274–75.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Remember to Hate the Amalekites [(8:6):(6:8)]

17 Remember / what / Amalek / did to you // 18 4 on the way / when you went forth from Egypt // 13 2 18 how he encountered you / on the way / 9 2_ And he smote the hindmost of you / 7 1 all the stragglers behind you / 13 1 And you / were famished and weary // 14 2 and he did not fear / God // 12 2_

19 And it shall be / when YHWH your God grants rest / 20 2 to you / from all your enemies / round about / in the land / 20 4_ That YHWH your God / 11 1 is giving to you as an inheritance / to possess it / 14 2 You shall blot out / the remembrance of Amalek / 12 2 _3 13 ס // from under \ heaven // you shall not / forget

Notes 17.a. LXX and Vg. read 2 sg. Note the use of the Numeruswechsel here, which helps to explain the variant reading.

for (יהוה =) your God”; LXX reads τὸν κύριον“ ,אלהיך a. Syr. adds.18 ”.God“ ,אלהים MT

19.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

Form/Structure/Setting In biblical tradition the war against the Amalekites of Exod 17:8–15 marks the beginning of an enmity that continues throughout the whole canonical process in ancient Israel. The initial war with Amalek is marked by the figure of Moses, with his hands held aloft by Aaron and Hur—“one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the sun set” (Exod 17:12)—for as long as his hands were upraised, Israel prevailed over the Amalekites. The story contains the fragment of an archaic war poem, which has been reconstructed as follows (see Christensen, Prophecy and War,48): For the hand is on Yahweh’s banner; the battle belongs to Yahweh, against Amalek from generation to generation. (Exod 17:16) The conflict with Amalek is the starting point in the account of YHWH’s Holy War, as the Divine Warrior brought his people from the land of Egypt to their home in the land of Canaan. King Saul’s rejection by the prophet Samuel is tied to the fact that he violated the law of Deut 25:17–19 by failing to observe the terms of YHWH’s Holy War against Amalek, when “he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, but utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam 15:8). Centuries later, in the story of Esther, the wicked Haman, who plotted the destruction of the Jews, is introduced as “the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha” (Esth 3:1), to draw the observant reader’s attention to the story of Saul and Agag of times past. Mordecai, the cousin of Esther, who plays such a pivotal role in the story, is introduced as “the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite” (Esth 2:5), that is, a descendant of King Saul. Thus at the end of the story of ancient Israel within the canon of sacred Scripture, we return to the beginning of that epic story in the exodus from Egypt and to the injunction to “remember what Amalek did to you” (Deut 25:17). Esther remembered, and the Jews finally fulfilled the words of Moses: “the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews [were hanged]; but they laid no hand on the plunder” (Esth 9:10). Thus the law of Deuteronomy was fulfilled, “You shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget” (Deut 25:17–19). The presence of the Numeruswechsel at the beginning of this final literary unit in the sixth of the eleven weekly portion of Torah readings from Deuteronomy (21:10–25:19) suggests that it is to be separated somewhat from the preceding law. In fact, it forms an inclusion with the law on marriage to a woman captured in war (21:10–14), a law that introduced the larger literary structure. It also forms a more immediate inclusion with the law on the deferral of a new husband from military service in 24:5, which frames the third major subsection in the larger structure, 24:5–25:19. Though the law of 25:17–19 differs from what precedes it in this section of Deuteronomy, to the point that some have questioned whether it should even be called a law in the formal sense, it shares the same structural design, which may be outlined as follows:

זכור את אשׁר־עשׂה Remember what Amalek did to“ A 25:17a you” לך עמלק

–25:17b בדרך בצאתכם when you went forth from“ B Egypt” 18a ממצרים

25:18b ולא ירא אלהים ”X “And he did not fear God

והיה בהניח … לך When YHWH grants rest … in“ B′ 25:19a the land” נחלה “Blot out the remembrance of A′ Amalek … do not forget” תמחה את־זכר עמלק 25:19b

… לא תשׁכח

In the center of this structure we find the simple statement that Amalek did not fear God (v 18b). The “fear of God” in wisdom literature is synonymous with wisdom (Prov 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Job 28:28; Ps 111:10). In light of Deut 10:12, we know what it means to fear YHWH—it means to love him and to walk in his ways. The inner frame moves from a description of the experience of the people of Israel when they “went forth from Egypt” and faced the treachery of Amalek “on the way” (vv 17b–18a) to a glimpse into the future when YHWH grants them rest and they possess their inheritance in the promised land (v 19a). The outer frame reminds the people to remember what Amalek did in times past (v 17a) and to blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven in times to come: “you shall not forget!” (v 19b). In the discussion of the previous law on honest weights and measures (25:13–16), the influence over narrative elsewhere in the Pentateuch moved from Gen 42– 44 to Exod 16 (cf. Carmichael, LNB, 299–303). The law on remembering Amalekite aggression (Deut 25:17–19) moves from the tradition in Exod 16 to Exod 17:7 (Carmichael, LNB, 304). This attack was made on the weak and vulnerable among the people of Israel, which is the reason their action is judged so severely. The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 25:17–19 and its larger literary context may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

25:17– 17 + 6 = 23 18 25:13– 68 (= 4 × 17) + 25 = 93 19 25:11– (= 102 85 (= 5 × 17) + 32 = 117 19 + 17)

21:10– (= 93 929 + 652 = 1,581 25:19 × 17)

Once again, we find the divine-name number 17 carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text in different ways. Vv 17–18 have 17 words beforeʾatnāḥ and a total of 23 ”.glory”), signifying the “glory of YHWH“ ,כבוד words (the numerical value of V 19 is constructed in a manner that ties25:17–19 to its immediate literary context, with 68 (= 4 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ in 25:13–19 and 85 (= 5 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ in 25:11–19. The most striking figure, however, is the total achieved for the words in the sixth of the eleven weekly readings in the lectionary cycle taken as a whole (21:10–25:19), for there are a grand total of 1,581 (= 93 × 17). The tedious and laborious task of achieving these figures was done to the glory of YHWH.

Comment 17–18 “Amalek” was a grandson of Esau and one of the six sons of Eliphaz (Gen 36:11–12), who is linked with the land of Edom. As the first nation to attack Israel at Rephidim shortly after the exodus from Egypt (Exod 17:8–16), the Amalekites subsequently take their place as the enemy par excellence in biblical tradition. Details of their aggression emerge here that are not found elsewhere. In a surprise attack, they [עיף] who] were famished] … [נחשׁלים] launched an assault … against the stragglers“ The “stragglers behind” were those who were too weak to keep up ”.[יגע] and weary translated here as ,עיף with the others on their march through the wilderness. The word “famished,” carries the meaning of “thirsty” or “hungry” more than “tired” though the two words are sometimes used interchangeably (Tigay ,(יעף normally) [1996] 392 n. 56). Within the traditions of YHWH’s Holy War, the Amalekites became a familiar subject for later generations as they remembered the exodus-eisodus events in cultic celebration (seeExcursus: “Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel”). The absence of extrabiblical information about this people should remind us that we are dealing with traditions of holy war in which the Amalekites play a central role symbolically—as the archenemy of Godpeople—and the first enemy defeated by the Divine Warrior, after the “Crossing of the Sea.” The reference to the fact that the Amalekites “did not fear God” indicates that they had no fear of divine punishment. often appears in (יראת אלהים) ”Sarna has noted that reference to the “fear of God connection with situations that invoke norms of moral and ethical conduct (Exploring Exodus, 25–26, 120). On the “fear of God” see Gen 20:11 (Abraham); Gen 42:18 (Joseph); Exod 1:17 (Hebrew midwives); Lev 19:14, 32 (laws of holiness); and Job 1:1, 8 (Job). From a historical point of view, it appears that the Amalekites ceased to exist as a nation in the days of Hezekiah, when “five hundred men of the Simeonites … destroyed the remnant of the Amalekites” (1 Chr 4:42–43). The concept of the Amalekites as the enemy par excellence was alive as late as the book of Esther, where Haman is described as an Agagite (Esth 3:1, 10;8:3, 5; 9:24) so as to relate him to Agag, the Amalekite enemy of King Saul (1 Sam 15). 19 The words “remember” and “do not forget” form an envelope around 25:17–19. The people are to remember what Amalek did, and they are to remember what Moses has commanded them to do about it—“you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.” In Jewish tradition the injunction to “remember the Amalekites” is carried out by reading the words of Deut 25:17–19 in public worship on the Sabbath immediately before the Feast of Purim (when the book of Esther is read), which is celebrated one month before Passover (Tigay [1996] 236). To “blot out the name” means to “wipe them out.” The account of the war with Amalek in Exod 17:8–15 closes with the command that YHWH gave to Moses: “Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exod 17:14 NRSV). Moses then adds these words: “The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exod 17:15 NRSV). On Exod 17:16 as a fragment of an archaic war poem appended to the narrative, and the war with Amalek as the first of a series of wars that, together with the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, constitute YHWH’s Holy War par excellence, see my earlier discussion (Prophecy and War, 48–49). The first recorded attempt to eliminate the Amalekites appears in the Former Prophets, when Samuel commanded Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1 Sam 15:3). The canonical process for the Hebrew Bible concludes with the inclusion of the book of Esther, when the ten sons of Haman the Agagite (Esth 3:1) were hanged on the gallows their father had built to execute Mordecai (Esth 9:13–14).

Explanation The language of holy war, as presented here in the injunction to remember to hate the Amalekites, has been the occasion of great mischief through the centuries within both Judaism and Christianity. Many scholars, like H. H. Shires and P. Parker, have concluded that “the antagonism which was felt toward foreigners … in the form in which it appears here, … sinks far below the lofty heights elsewhere to be seen in this book.… Like the chauvinists and totalitarians of our own generation, the author felt that hatred of another people would help to unify the nation” (see their “Exposition of the Book of Deuteronomy,” IB 2:482). Such a teaching is contrary to that of the apostle Paul when he quoted Jesus’ words: “If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads” (Rom 12:20 NRSV). It is also contrary to the teaching of Deuteronomy itself, when properly understood and interpreted. The war with Amalek in Exod 17 is the first in a series of wars that, together with the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red Sea, constitute YHWH’s Holy War par excellence, as celebrated event in ancient Israel. Further battles in this series include the war with the Canaanite kings of Arad (Num 21:1–3), the wars with Amorite kings Sihon and Og (Num 21:21–35), and the war against Midian (Num 31:1–54)—all under the leadership of Moses. After Moses’ death, Joshua led the people of Israel across the Jordan River to the second phase of YHWH’s Holy War against Jericho, Ai, and the Canaanite inhabitants of the promised land. What we are dealing with here is the presentation of Egypt and Amalek as paradigmatic enemies within the canonical process. Seven other traditional enemies appear, alongside Amalek, in Deuteronomic tradition, namely the “seven nations greater and mightier than [Israel]”—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deut 7:1; Josh 3:10; 24:11). Though some of these “nations” are identifiable, the Perizzites and the Girgashites remain obscure. Detailed study of the occurrences of these seven names within the biblical tradition suggests that the complete listing of seven nations is traditional in nature. Within the Holy War materials of the Deuteronomic tradition, these seven nations constitute a roll call of enemies within some sort of cultic context, in which Amalek was considered the archenemy par excellence. Though the book of Esther continues that ancient tradition and brings it to a fitting conclusion in the death of Haman and his ten sons, the Latter Prophets and the Writings together present a remarkable transformation of teachings about Israel’s enemies. Egypt becomes “the rod of [YHWH’s] anger” in Isa 10:5, which is to be understood in terms of the great “march of conquest” portrayed in Isa 10:27c–34 (D. Christensen, “The March of Conquest inIsaiah 10:27c–34,” VT 26 [1976] 385–99). In this passage it is the Divine Warrior himself who threatens daughter Zion with destruction. The vision continues across the chapter division. In spite of the hewing down of “the thickets of the forest” (Isa 10:34), a shoot from the stump of Jesse will become an ensign to the nations (11:1, 10) for an eschatological contest. Although the focus in these passages is on the remnant of Israel, it is clear that YHWH is Lord of the nations. He will use, however unwittingly, even wicked Assyria to pave the way for a “new eisodus” (11:12–16) that will establish his people in a “new kingdom” described in messianic terms (11:1–9). The image is carried even further within Isaiah’s subsequent oracles against Egypt (Isa 19:24–25): “In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying: ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage.’ ” Along with the seven paradigmatic enemies of ancient Israel, Amalek faced annihilation in the ancient traditions of YHWH’s Holy War. Subsequent enemy nations, however, were treated very differently within the canonical process. Cultic gatherings at the became anticipations of all nations gathering to worship YHWH. Kings from Egypt, Ethiopia, and all the kingdoms of the earth, bearing gifts for the temple and singing praises to God, join the procession of the tribes of Israel to the temple in Ps 68. In Isa 40–55 the descendants of Israel return to Zion from exile, in contexts that suggest that the “survivors of the nations” are reckoned among these descendants (44:1– 5; 45:22–25; 49:12–20; 53:10). When, as a result of the suffering and mission of the servant, the peoples at the ends of the earth are waiting for YHWH’s rule, their survivors join themselves to Israel to converge on Jerusalem (55:5). People from nations “of every tongue” join the returning Jews (Zech 8:21–23), and the alienation of the enemy nations is removed when YHWH changes “the speech of the peoples to a pure speech” so that they may call on his name (Zeph 3:9). Kings lead their nations in a great procession (Isa 60:3, 11), which extends “from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain (Mic 7:12), bringing the wealth of the nations on camels (Isa 60:5–6), driving before them animals for sacrifice, and carrying the sons and daughters of Israel in their arms (v 4). They join themselves to YHWH and become his people (Zech 2:11) and go up every year to the great fall festival in Jerusalem (Zech 14:16)—where they assemble to hear the words of Deuteronomy recited “every seventh year, in the set time, the year of release, at the Festival of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before YHWH your God in the place that he will choose” (Deut 31:10–11).

Reading 7: Public Worship and Covenant Renewal (26:1–29:8 [Eng. 9])

Introduction The seventh of the weekly portions in the cycle of Torah readings from when you come,” from its opening“ ,כי תבוא Deuteronomy (26:1–29:8) is known as words. Its first segment, with its two liturgies for use in the annual pilgrimage festivals (26:1–15), functions as a transitional passage tying together the stipulations of the covenant as spelled out in the laws of the central core (chaps. 12–26) with the covenant ceremony that follows in 27:1–29:8 (Eng. 9) and the appeal for covenant loyalty in 29:9 (Eng. 10)–30:20. Deut 26 functions as the conclusion to the collection of laws in the central core, as shown in the following outline: A Public worship at the central sanctuary and in local towns 12:1–14:21 B Laws on human affairs in relation to God 14:22–16:17 X Laws on leadership and authority—executive and judicial 16:18–21:9 B Laws on human affairs in relation to others 21:10–25:19 A′ Public worship at the central sanctuary and in local towns 26:1–19 In this structure the whole of 26:1–19 is read over against the section on proper worship at the central sanctuary (“the place YHWH chooses to make his name dwell there”) in 12:1–14:21. Deut 26 is also to be read in relation to 14:22–16:17, for the subject of the special triennial tithe in ancient Israel appears in 14:28–29 and here in26:12–15, but nowhere else in the Torah. Moreover, the fourth of the weekly portions of the Torah readings from Deuteronomy in 11:27–16:17concludes with a section on the three pilgrimage festivals (16:1–17) where the liturgy of 26:5–9 had its Sitz im Cultus. The relationship between 16:1–17and 26:1–19 may be outlined as follows: A The Passover sacrifice and the Feast of Unleavened Bread 16:1–8 B The Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths 16:9–15 X Do not appear empty-handed at the three festivals 16:16–17 B The liturgy of firstfruits and the triennial tithe 26:1–15 A′ Mutual commitments between God and Israel in covenant renewal 26:16–19 The presentation of the pilgrimage festivals in Deut 16 follows the agricultural year, beginning in the spring with Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread and moving on to the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), seven weeks later in early summer, and then to the Feast of Booths (Sukkoth) in the fall. The section concludes with a summary command that every male is to appear at the central sanctuary (“the place God will choose”) “three times in the year … at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths; and they shall not appear before YHWH empty-handed” (16:16). The declaration in 26:5–9 (and vv 12–15) is what each individual worshiper was commanded to say as he placed his offerings (and tithes) before YHWH in public worship at the central sanctuary. The above outline suggests that the ceremony of covenant renewal, with its mutual commitments made between God and Israel, was celebrated in conjunction with the spring festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread. The Feast of Weeks (at the culmination of grain harvest) and the Feast of Booths (on completion of the agricultural year as a whole) were the occasions for the liturgy of firstfruits and the presentation of the annual tithes. The special triennial tithe was apparently stored locally in the towns, or perhaps in the nearest Levitical city, as provision for the needs of the Levites, resident aliens, orphans, and widows—and perhaps for use in the context of local assemblies every fifty days within the towns throughout the country, except on the occasions of the three pilgrimages to the central sanctuary (see Excursus: “The Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings in Palestinian Judaism”). The injunction not to appear at these three festivals empty-handed is the focus of attention, for the entire system in terms of the religious establishment (priests and Levites) and social welfare (provision for the needs of resident aliens, orphans, and widows) was dependent on this income. Though Deut 26 is in three parts, with the boundaries of each section marked by sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv 11, 15, and 19, careful prosodic analysis reveals five major rhythmic structures: A Worship by offering God the firstfruits 26:1–4 B Liturgy—declaration at the central sanctuary 26:5–9 X Worship in providing for human need—Levites and aliens 26:10–11 B Liturgy—declaration at local sanctuaries 26:12–15 A′ Worship and mutual commitments between God and his people 26:16–19 The literary structure alternates between third-person description of worship and first- person liturgical declaration, which constitutes the inner frame in this particular structure. The concluding subunit in 26:16–19, which serves as a connecting link between 11:26–32 and 27:1–10, is itself in two parts (vv16–17 and 18–19), in which mutual commitments are made between God and Israel in covenant renewal—in anticipation of the covenant ceremony itself, which follows in Deut 27–30. A close reading of Deut 27–30 reveals a mixture of two covenant ceremonies: one on the plains of Moab, in the days of Moses, and another to be observed in the future at Shechem under Joshua. The most useful approach for our purposes here is to examine in detail the whole of Deut 26–30, the seventh and eighth of the weekly readings from Deuteronomy in the lectionary cycle, which may be outlined as follows: A Public worship at the annual festivals in the promised land 26:1–19 B The renewal of the covenant at Shechem 27:1–26 X Blessings and curses of covenant renewal in Moab 28:1–69 B Appeal for covenant faithfulness in the future 29:1–28 A′ Call to decision: life and blessing or death and cursing 30:1–20 The outer frame in this structure moves from the presentation of liturgies for public worship within the context of the pilgrimage festivals in the promised land (26:1–19) to the great summons to decision—to choose life and the blessing of the covenant rather than death and its curses (30:1–20). The inner frame moves from the account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem in the days of Joshua (27:1–26) to an appeal for covenant faithfulness addressed to future generations (29:1–28). The center of this structure is the blessings and curses of the covenant itself (28:1–69 [Eng. 28:1–29:1]), which includes the ponderous and depressing reiteration of the details of future disaster if the terms of the covenant are not observed (28:20–68). The next step in our analysis of the structure of Deut 26–30 is to outline each of the two weekly portions in the same manner: Outline of Reading 7: Public Worship and Covenant Renewal (26:1– 29:8 [Eng. 29:9]) A Public worship at the annual festivals in the promised land 26:1–19 B Renewal of the covenant at Shechem 27:1–26 X Covenant blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience 28:1–19 B Warning of future disaster for breaking the covenant 28:20–69 A′ Remembering the past: the basis of the covenant spelled out 29:1–8 Outline of Reading 8: Appeal for Covenant Loyalty (29:9 [Eng. 10]–30:20) A Covenant ceremony in Moab under Moses 29:9–20 B Aftermath of punishment—conclusion to Moses’ warning 29:21–28 X Conclusion: observe the words of this Torah 29:28 B The possibility of restoration 30:1–10 A′ Conclusion of the summons to the covenant 30:11–20 The two centers in this reading of Deut 26–30 focus attention on the covenant blessings and curses (28:1–19), and the summary command to observe the words of this Torah, which is presented in the form of a riddle: “The secret things belong to YHWH our God, and the revealed things to us and to our children forever—to do all the words of this Torah” (29:28). The plain meaning of the text refers to its immediate context, which speaks of national disaster as a consequence of disobedience to YHWH’s commandments. But at the same time, as Labuschagne has shown, “it has another message: the concealed things, the esoteric knowledge with regard to the written text of the law, the sacred numerical structures, are for the benefit of God, to his glory, but the text of the law in its straight, plain language is for the benefit of the people. It is a coded message to the ordinary people, to the uninitiated, who do not know the hidden intricacies of the text, to obey the law in its plain meaning” (“Divine Speech in Deuteronomy,” in SBTS 3:388–89). The content of that revealed truth is what is contained in the Deuteronomic code of law (Deut 12–26), or what I have called here the “central core” of Deuteronomy. Another way of reading this section of Deuteronomy is to divide each of these halves in half, to find “four wheels of the same likeness” with another single summary verse (28:69) at the center: A Public Worship at the Festivals in the Promised Land 26:1–19 a Worship by offering God the firstfruits 26:1–4 b Liturgy declaration at presentation of firstfruits 26:5–9 x True religion providing for Levites, aliens, etc. 26:10–11 b′ Liturgy declaration at presentation of triennial tithe 26:12–15 a′ Worship and mutual commitments between God and his people 26:16–19 B The Covenant Blessings and Curses 27:1–28:68 a Renewal of the covenant at Shechem 27:1–26 b Covenant blessings and curses 28:1–19 x First expanded description of future disasters 28:20–37 b′ Second expanded description of future disasters 28:38–57 a′ Undoing of blessings—final reversal of Israel’s history 28:58–68 X Summation: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 B′ The Covenant Is for Future Generations Too 29:1–28 a Moses reviews the basis of the covenant 29:1–8 b Moses reminds the people of the purpose of the assembly 29:9–12 x The covenant is for future generations as well 29:13–14 b′ Moses warns of consequences for breaking the covenant 29:15–27 a′ Conclusion: “Do all the words of this Torah!” 29:28 A′ The Terms of the Covenant Are Doable 30:1–20 a The possibility of restoration is there 30:1–5 b When you seek to purify yourselves you will receive help 30:6–10 c This instruction is not beyond your reach 30:11 b′ God’s requirements are known, understandable, and doable 30:12–14 a′ Call to decision: life and blessing or death and cursing 30:15–20 The four centers, together with the summary statement in 28:69, that emerge in this reading tell the basic story of Deut 26–30. A brief summary of the nature of “true religion” in the promised land, in which the needs of “the Levite and the sojourner in your midst” are met (26:10–11), is set over against the assurance that “this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you” (30:11)—this instruction is not beyond your reach, it is doable. The words of the covenant are the words that YHWH commanded Moses in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant he made with them at Mount Sinai (28:69). The centers of sections B and B′ move from an expanded description of future disasters in the wake of covenant violation (28:20– 37) to the declaration that the terms of the covenant apply for future generations as well (29:13–14). The implication is clear: the terms of YHWH’s covenant stand for all time— including the covenant renewal celebration under Joshua at Shechem (with YHWH’s altar on Mount Ebal), and in the more distant future on Mount Zion. Though Israel and their king will ultimately suffer exile from the promised land for disobedience (28:36– 37), the covenant stands forever: “I am making this covenant, sworn by an oath, not only with you who stand here with us today before YHWH our God, but also with those who are not here with us today” (29:13–14).

A. Preview: Two Liturgies for Worship in the Promised Land (26:1–15) 1. Liturgy of Firstfruits at the Central Sanctuary (26:1–11) Bibliography

Bartlett, J. R. “The Brotherhood of Edom.” JSOT 4 (1977) 2–27. Beauchamp, P. “Propositions sur l’alliance de l’Ancien Testament comme structure centrale.”RSR 58 (1970) 161–93. Beek, M. A. “Das Problem des Aramäischen Stammvaters (Dt 26, 5).” OTS 8 (1950) 193–212. Braulik, G. Sage, was du glaubst: Das älteste Credo der Bibel—Impuls in neuester Zeit. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1979. ———. “Wie aus Erzählung ein Bekenntnis wird; das Credo Israels—Eine Kurzformel des Glaubens.” Entschluss 38 (1983) 15, 24– 26. Brekelmans, C. H. W. “Het ‘Historische Credo’ van Israel.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 3 (1963) 1–11. Buber, M. “The Prayer of the .” In On the Bible. Ed. N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1968. 122–30. Buck, H. M. “Story and Celebration.” InScripture in History and Theology: FS J. C. Rylaarsdam. Ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt. PTMS 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977. 357–72. Carmichael, C. M.“Climactic Ceremony of First Fruits and the Historical Credo.” In Laws of Deuteronomy. 1974. 246–54. ———. “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo.” VT 19 (1969) 273–89. Childs, B. S. “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 30–39. Danker, W. Creeds in the Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966. Dreyfus, F. “ ‘L’Araméen voulait tuer mon père’: L’actualisation de Dt 26, 5 dans la tradition juive et la tradition chrétienne.” In De la Tôrah au Messie: FS H. Cazelles. 1981. 147–61. Gibson, J. C. L. “Observations on Some Important Ethnic Terms in the Pentateuch.”JNES 20 (1961) 217–38. Giesen, G. Die Gross, W. “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang .78–276 .1981 . שׁבע Wurzel althebräischer Erzählungen: Hintergrund und Vordergrund.” In Congress Volume, Vienna פרשׁת “ .Ed. J. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. 131–45. Gutmann, Y .1980 InFS Y. Kaufmann. 1960. 43–53 (Heb.). Haag, H. “ ‘Offenbaren’ in der ”.הביכורם hebräischen Bibel.” In Das Buch des Bundes: Aufsätze zur Bibel und ihrer Welt. Ed. B. Lang. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1980. 73–78. Halévy, J. “Recherches bibliques: Le Deutéronome.” RSEHA 8 (1900) 113–14, 193–94. Hammershaimb, E. “History and Cult in the Old Testament.” In Near Eastern Studies: FS W. F. Albright. 1971. 269–82. Haran, M. “Priestertum, Tempeldienst und Gebet.” In Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem- Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-August-Universität. Ed. G. Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. 141–53. Harner, P. B. “Exodus, Sinai, and Hittite Prologues.” JBL 85 (1966) 233–36. Huffmon, H. B. “The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo.” CBQ 27 (1965) 101–13.Hyatt, J. P. “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?” In Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: FS H. G. May. Ed. H. Frank and W. Reed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. 152– 70. Jenni, E. “Faktitiv und Kausativ von ˒bd ‘Zugrunde Gehen.’ ” In FS W. Baumgartner.1967. 143–57. Kadushin, M. Worship and Ethics. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1964. 71–81. Kliesch, K. Das heilsgeschichtliche Credo in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte. BBB 44. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1975. Lang, B. “Glaubensbekenntnisse im Alten und Neuen Testament.” Conc 14 (1978) 499–503. Larcher, C. “La profession de foi dans l’Ancien Testament.” LV 2 (1952) 15–38. Lohfink, G. “Dtn 26, 5–9: Ein Beispiel altisraeltischer Geschichtstheologie” (1976). Repr.in Studien zum Deuteronomium. 1990. 1:291–303.———. “Die Gattung der ‘historischen Kurzgeschichte’ in den letzen Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des babylonischen Exils” (1978). Repr. in Studien zum Deuteronomium. 1991. 2:55–86.———. Option for the Poor. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1986. 35.———. “Zum ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’ Dtn 26, 5–9.” TP 46 (1971) 19– 39. Luckenbill, D. D. “The ‘Wandering Aramean.’ ” AJSL 36 (1919/20) 244–45. Marti, M. “Das erste officielle Bekenntnis.” ZTK 2 (1892) 29–73. McCarthy, D. J. “What Was Israel’s Historical Creed?” Lexington Theological Quarterly 4 (1969) 46–53.McNamara, M. “De Populi Aramaeorum Primordiis.” VD 35 (1957) 129–42. Millard, A. R. “A Wandering Aramean.” JNES 39 (1980) 153–55. Moriarty, F. L.“My Father Was a Wandering Aramean.” TBT 1 (1962) 97–108. Pedersen, J. Israel. 2:299–307. Richter, W. “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung in der alttestamentlichen Literatur anhand des ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo.’ ” In Wahrheit und Verkündigung: FS M. Schmaus. Ed. L. Scheffczyk et al. 2 vols. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1967. 1:175–212. Rinaldi, G. “Ṭene˒ in Deut 26, 2.4.” BeO 12 (1970) 104. Rost, L. “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo.” In Das kleine Credo.Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965. 11–25. Schreiner, J. “Die Entwicklung des israelitischen ‘Credo.’ ” Conc 2 (1966) 757–62. Seebass, H. Der Erzvater Israel und die Einführung der Jahweverehrung in Kanaan. BZAW 98. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966. Thompson, J. A. “The Cultic Credo and the Sinai Tradition.” Reformed Theological Review 27 (1968) 53–64. Tigay, J. “On Some Aspects of Prayer in the Bible.” AJSR 1 (1976) 377–78. Vriezen, T. C. “The Credo in the Old Testament.” OTWSA 6 (1963) 5– 17. Wassermann, G. “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo (Deut 26, 5ff.) und seine deuteronomische Übermalung.” In Theologische Versuche 2. Ed. J. Rogge and G. Schille. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1970. 27–46. Weinfeld, M. “The Liturgical Oration.” In DSS. 32–45. Weippert, M.“Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewußtseins.” VT 23 (1973) 414–42. Wijngaards, J. N. M. The Formulas of the Deuteronomic Creed (Dt. 6/20–23: 26/5– 9).Tilburg: A. Reijnen, 1963. Zang-Embolo, P. “Histoire et accès au sens dans le petit crédo historique (Dt xxvi,1–15) ou les présupposés d’une herméneutique.”Diss., Freiburg Univ., Theol. Fak., 1983.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Liturgy of Firstfruits at the Central Sanctuary [(7:7):(5:5):(7:7)] [(5:3):6:(5:5):(4:4):(5:5):6:(3:5)]

1 And it shall be / when you come into the land / 17 2 that \ YHWH your God / is giving you / as an inheritance // 21 3 and you possess it / and you dwell in it // 13 2_ 2 And you shall take / 6 1 from the first / of [all] the fruit of the ground / 16 2 that you shall bring from your land / 11 1 That YHWH your God / is giving to you / 17 2 and you shall put it in a basket // 7 1_ And you shall go \ to the place / 12 1 that YHWH your God / chooses / 13 2 to make his name dwell / there // 9 2_ 3 And you shall come / to the priest / 12 2 who is there / in those days // 13 2 and you shall say to him / 10 1_ “I declare TODAY / to YHWH God / 16 2 that I have entered / the land / 12 2 that YHWH swore to our fathers / to give to 27 3_ us” // 4 And the priest shall receive / the basket / from your hand // 18 3 and he shall put it / before / the altar / of YHWH your 20 4_ God // 5 And you shall answer and say / before / YHWH your God / 23 3 “A wandering Aramean / was my father / 12 2 And he went down to Egypt / 8 1 and he sojourned there / few in number // 13 2_ And there he became / a great nation / 13 2 mighty and populous // 9 1 6 And the Egyptians / treated us badly / 17 2 and they afflicted us // 7 1_ And they imposed upon us / hard servitude // 20 2 7 and we cried out / to YHWH / God of our fathers // 19 3 And YHWH heard / our voice / 13 2 and he saw our affliction / and our toil / and our distress // 25 3_ 8 And YHWH brought us forth / from Egypt / with a mighty hand / 24 3 and an outstretched arm / 11 1 And with great / terror // 10 2 and with signs / and with portents // 13 2_ 9 And he brought \ us to this place // 14 1 and he gave to us \ this land / 16 1 a land / flowing with milk / and honey // 13 3_ 10 And now / behold I have brought \ the firstfruits / 18 2 fruit of the ground / that you have given to me / O 22 3_ YHWH” // And you shall put it down / before \ YHWH your God / 17 3 and you shall bow down / before / YHWH your God // 19 3_ 11 And you shall celebrate all the bounty / 10 1 that YHWH your God / has given to you / 15 2 And to your house // you / and the Levite / 15 3 _2 10 ס // and the sojourner / who is in your midst

Notes

1.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. .all,” with some Heb. MSS, SP, and LXX“ ,כל a. Omitting.2 2.b-b. Omitted in most LXX witnesses. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

2.c. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ,my God,” with LXX τῷ θεῷ μου“ ,אלהי your God,” reading“ ,אלהיך a. For MT.3 .as dittography ך to my God”; I take the“

my God,” to achieve balance in terms of mora count and word“ ,אלהי b. Adding.3 count within the larger context of 26:1–19 and 11:26–26:19 as a whole ,אלהיך =) see Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition”). Syr. adds ˒lhk) “your God”).

from your hand,” with a“ ,מידך from your hands,” for MT“ ,מידיך a. Reading.4 few Heb. MSS and LXX-MS. 5.a-a. LXX reads Συριαν ἀπέβαλεν, “he left Syria”; LXXMNmin read Συριαν ארמי κατέλειπεν, “he left Syria”; a few Heb. MSS and Cairo Geniza fragments read ”a wandering Aramean.” The familiar translation “a wandering Aramean“ ,אוֹבד (MOFFATT, JB, NRSV, NIV, and [(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1996) 215]) is retained because of its own poetic quality. 5.b. With a few Heb. MSS, SP, LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. adding waw-conj., which I read as emphatic. 5.c-c. Omitted in Syr. Prosodic analysis favors MT.

,ובמרא גדל and with great visions,” for MT“ ,ובמראה גדול a-a. SP reads.8 “and with great terror”; LXX reads pl.

9.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 9.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 10.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 10.b. LXX adds γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

10.c. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 11.a-a. LXX (and OL) read σὺ καὶ ἡ οἰκία σου, “you and your household”; LXX read καὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου καί, “and to your household”; Cairo Geniza fragments ”.and to your house“ ,ולביתך and to your houses,” for MT“ ,ולביתיך read

Form/Structure/Setting Two liturgical confessions are presented from Moses’ perspective prior to the exodus; but both presuppose possession of the land and the offering to God of the fruit of that land. The language of the first confession is archaic, and is surely premonarchic in origin. It “preserves a ceremony used in the days of the tabernacle before the erection of the temple by Solomon” (G. E. Wright, IB 2:483). The outer limits of 26:1–11 are marked by the pĕtûḥāʾ layout marker after 25:19 and the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker after 26:11. Within 26:1–11, the only discernible marker to indicate structure is the use of first-person direct speech in vv 3b and 5–10a. The declarations here and in vv 13b–15 are the only addresses to God with prescribed wording, which ordinary folk are to recite in a formal liturgical setting, to be found within the Torah (see also 21:7–9for the closest parallel situation). Each of these two liturgical prayers is to be recited “before YHWH your God” (vv 5, 13); and each refers to the land as a gift from God in fulfillment of his promises to the fathers, a land described as “flowing with milk and honey” (vv 9, 15). On the basis of prosodic analysis, vv 1–11 may be divided into five subunits: A You shall bring the firstfruits to the central sanctuary 26:1–2 B Presentation of firstfruits to the priest with declaration 26:3–4a X Presentation at the altar with recitation of Magnalia Dei 26:4b–9 B Presentation of firstfruits to YHWH by the worshiper 26:10a A′ You shall put it down before YHWH and rejoice 26:10b–11 In the center of this structure (vv 4b–9), we find the recitation of what G. von Rad designated the “small historical credo,” or what G. E. Wright called the Magnalia Dei (“the mighty acts of God”). The outer frame moves from the instructions to bring the firstfruits to the central sanctuary (vv 1–2) to instructions regarding “family worship” at the central sanctuary, which includes the household of the worshiper “and the Levite and the sojourner who is in your midst” (v 11). The inner frame moves from the individual worshiper’s presentation of “the basket” containing the firstfruits, which is received from his hand by the priest in charge at that time (vv 3–4a), to the presentation of the firstfruits themselves to YHWH (v 10a). Both of these presentations are followed by specific prayers that the worshiper recites within that liturgical setting. The law in 25:17–19 (on remembering Amalekite aggression) was used to shape the narrative of Exod 17, shortly before the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai. The time span in the narrative from the completion of the building of the tabernacle in Exod 40:33, with its menorah, to the departure from Mount Sinai in Num 10:11 was exactly one month. The law of the firstfruits ceremony in Deut 26:1–11 is reflected in the stories of Num 13–14 at the beginning of the forty years on the edge of the promised land, where once again we meet the Amalekites. In the so-called unholy war, when the Israelites attempted to enter the promised land against the advice of Moses, following the episode with the twelve spies (Num 13) who brought back with them some of the firstfruits of the promised land (Num 13:23–24), “the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and defeated them, pursuing them as far as Hormah” (Num 14:45 NRSV; cf. 14:25). “Now it was the season of the first ripe grapes” (Num 13:20 NRSV) when the spies entered the land; “and they came to the Wadi Eshcol, and cut down from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole between two of them. They also brought some pomegranates and figs” (Num 13:23 NRSV). Carmichael notes that, “As in Exod 16:3 (related to the law on weights and measures) and Exod 17:3 (related to the law on Amalek), so the Israelites had complained that God’s aim was to destroy them (Num 14:3). Their failure to proceed did invoke God’s wrath: the complainers were to be denied entry to the land in the future. Paying no attention to this pronouncement, they decided to invade but were defeated by the Amalekites and the Canaanites” (LNB, 306). The law in Deut 26:1–2 states explicitly, “when you come into the land that YHWH your God is giving you, … you shall take from the first of [all] the fruit of the ground … and you shall put it in a basket, and you shall go to the place that YHWH your God chooses to make his name dwell there.” There they were to declare, “I have entered the land that YHWH swore to our fathers to give to us; and the priest shall receive the basket from your hand” (vv 3–4). When the twelve spies returned with their firstfruits, they presented them to Moses and Aaron, the first Israelite priest, and to all the congregation of Israel. Moreover, as Carmichael puts it (LNB, 306), “There was no altar there but, perhaps significantly … the incident happened at a place whose name means ‘sanctuary,’ Kadesh.” The law in Deut 26:5–9 then directs the Israelites to make another declaration about YHWH’s activity in their behalf from the time of their ancestor Jacob to the present. Carmichael presents impressive arguments to relate this passage to a subsequent attack at Kadesh forty years later on the part of the Edomites (Num 20). Driver also discusses common features of these two incidents at Kadesh in Num 13–14 and 20 ([1896] 31– 33). Moreover, as Carmichael observes, “the Edomites and the Amalekites are related (Gen 36:12). Their attacks upon the Israelites are similar to those conflicts between brothers that have been a dominant element in the immediately preceding laws” (LNB, 307). In Num 20:3–5 we find the same complaints on the part of the people that were observed earlier in Num 14:3. Indeed, they make specific reference to the previous occasion at Kadesh “when our kindred died before the LORD” (Num 20:3 NRSV; cf. Num 14:36–37). Once again in the wilderness they face the same plight: “It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink” (Num 20:5 NRSV). Moreover, as was the case in Exod 17 in the incident with the Amalekites, water was provided to them from a rock (Num 20:11). The structure and content of the speech of “your brother Israel” to the king of Edom in Num 20:14–17, which is patterned after that of the declaration in Deut 26:5–10, may be outlined as follows: A You know our adversity, for our ancestors went to Egypt Num 20:14 B The Egyptians oppressed us and our ancestors Num 20:15 X We cried to YHWH and he heard our voice Num 20:16a B He sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt to Kadesh Num 20:16b A′ Now let us pass through your land Num 20:17 The focus of attention in this structure is on the exodus from Egypt, as the people cried out to YHWH in their distress and he heard them (v 16a). The inner frame moves from the oppression in Egypt (v 15), to the original “Passover” when YHWH brought them out of Egypt (v 16b). The outer frame moves from a presentation of their past plight, which took the ancestors to Egypt (v 14), to the present request for permission to pass through the land of Edom en route “home” to the promised land (v 17). The structure of the above speech to the king of Edom is virtually identical to that of the worshiping Israelite in the liturgy of firstfruits at the central sanctuary in Deut 26:5– 9, which may be outlined as follows: A A wandering Aramean was my father, who went down to Egypt Deut 26:5 B The Egyptians oppressed us Deut 26:6 X We cried to YHWH and he heard our voice Deut 26:7 B YHWH brought us forth from Egypt with a mighty hand Deut 26:8 A′ And he brought us to this place Deut 26:9 The only real difference in the two outlines is the second half of the outer frame. In the first instance (Num 20:17), the desire is to pass through the one remaining territorial obstacle (Edom) that separates the people of Israel from the place that YHWH has chosen to establish his name (Deut 26:9). to give,” in the“ ,נתן Buber calls attention to a sevenfold repetition of the verb instruction and prayer presented here in 26:1–11 (On the Bible, 125), which may be outlined as follows:

to you (נתן) A When you enter the land YHWH is giving 26:1 to you (נתן) B Bring from the land YHWH is giving 26:2 to us (לתת) C I have entered the land YHWH swore to give 26:3 on us hard servitude (ויתנו ”,X The Egyptians imposed (“gave 26:6 us this land (ויתן) C′ YHWH brought us to this place and gave 26:9 to me (נתתה) B I have brought the firstfruits you have given 26:10 to you (נתן) A′ You shall celebrate the bounty YHWH has given 26:11 “In the first three and last three cases it is used of God’s gift to Israel; between the two groups of three, however, there is a strange ‘giving,’ … it is the Egyptians, who ‘gave us hard bondage’ (Deut. 26:6)” (Buber, On the Bible, 125). The outer frame in this concentric structure moves from a statement about the future when YHWH gives Israel its land (v 1) to the injunction to celebrate that gift in public worship (v 11). The second frame moves from a command to bring the firstfruits of the land (v 2) to the response of the individual landowner that he has brought the firstfruits to YHWH (v 10). The innermost frame (vv 3, 9), together with the center (v 6), connects the present act of worship with YHWH’s mighty acts in times past when he delivered Israel from the “hard servitude” that Egypt had given them, and brought them to the promised land. Buber also calls attention to the “twice seven times” use of the name of God in this short passage, which displays carefully structured patterning as well. For him, “this working with numbers on the part of the author or the editor has a didactic purpose” (p. 128). The structure may be outlined in a menorah pattern:

יהוה אלהיך … יהוה אלהיך … יהוה אלהיך A 26:1–2 ליהוה אלהיך B 26:3a יהוה C 26:3b יהוה אלהיך … יהוה אלהיך X 26:4–5 יהוה אלהי אבתינו ′C 26:7a יהוה … יהוה … יהוה B 26:7b–10a יהוה אלהיך … יהוה אלהיך … יהוה אלהיך ′A 26:10b–11 The structural frame (A, X, A′) consists of the three clusters of the eight occurrences of the words “YHWH your God”—three in each half of the outer frame (vv 1–2, 10–11), and two in the center (vv 4–5). The innermost frame sets the first occurrence of “YHWH” alone (v 3) over against the phrase “YHWH God of our fathers” (v 7). The second frame sets a ninth occurrence of the name “YHWH your God,” to which the preposition “to” is attached (v 3), over against a threefold repetition of the name “YHWH” alone (vv 7–10). The three-plus-one patterning is also evident here in two יהוה אלהי in v 3 is set over against three words יהוה different ways: the single word in v 3 is set over against a group of ליהוה אלהיך in v 7, and the expression אבתינו .in vv 7–10 יהוה three occurrences of Buber observes that a mishnaic report (m. Bik. 3) of how the offering of firstfruits was celebrated reads as though the intention was to preserve something lost and past for the memory of future generations. We hear how the people from the surrounding country come to Jerusalem with first fruits, those living close at hand with fresh fruits, those far away with dried. In the early morning the procession enters the city headed by pipers, then the sacrificial bull with gilded horns, and behind it the men, bearing baskets filled with fruits and garlanded with grapes, each according to his wealth, golden baskets, silver baskets, and baskets woven from stripped willow-twigs. The artisans of Jersualem come out to meet them, greeting those from each place in turn: “Brothers, men from the place of such-and-such a name, may you come in peace!” But when they stood by the temple hill the king himself took his basket on his shoulders and entered in with them. In the forecourt the Levites sang the verse from the Psalms: “I will exalt Thee, YHVH, for Thou hast drawn me up.” The verb described the lifting of the bucket from the well.… the quotation comes to mean: “Israel gives thanks to God for raising it from the well of Egypt into the daylight and freedom of its own land.” (On the Bible, 129–30) The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 26:1–11 may be summarized as follows: Words: before ʾatnāḥ after ʾatnāḥ

26 13 39 26:1–2 + = 37 34 71 26:1–4 + (= 2 × 17) = 26:5–11 56 + 46 = 102 (= 6 × 17)

93 + 172 26:1–11 79 = There are 26 words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 1–2, 34 (= 2 × 17) words after ʾatnāḥ in vv 1–4, and a total of 102 (= 6 × 17) words in vv 5–11. The total of 172 words in 26:1–11 is את־ראשׁית פרי explained by Labuschagne as the numerical value of the key phrase = א) + (20 = ר) + (22 = ת) + (1 = א) :the firstfruits of the ground,” in v10“ ,האדמה (1 = א) + (5 = ה) + (10 = י) + (20 = ר) + (17 = פ) + (22 = ת) + (10 = י) + (21 = שׂ) + (1 .172 = (5 = ה) + (13 = ם) + (4 = ד) +

Comment 1 Buber observes that the opening instruction of this section, “when you come into ”,that YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance [כי־תבוא אל־הארץ] the land appears only here and in 17:14, the law of the king (On the Bible, 122–23). In 17:14 the people of Israel as a whole are addressed as “you,” but here the pronoun refers to the individual landowner as a member of that community, when he appears before YHWH at the central sanctuary with his offering from the firstfruits of the land. 2 The offering of “the first of [all] the fruit of the ground” acknowledges that God is ,ראשׁית the source and true owner of the land’s produce. On the meaning of the term “first,” see the Comment on 18:4, where I interpret the term as the “first processed,” and not the first ripe or first harvested crops in their natural state (with J. Milgrom, “First Fruits, OT,” IDBSup, 336–37). The firstfruits of the new harvest were to be placed “in a and brought “to the place that YHWH your God chooses to make his (בטנא) ”basket name dwell there” (i.e., the central sanctuary). 3–4 The offering was to be presented “to the priest who is there in those days” as an act of public worship, within the context of the annual pilgrimage festivals. The first words that the landowner was to speak to the priest show that the dual reference to “you” (pl. and sg.) that Buber observed in v 1 is not accidental: “I declare today to YHWH my God that I have entered the land.” As Buber put it, “Here the people and the individual are merged into one.… The speaker identifies himself with Israel and speaks in its name” (On the Bible, 123). Cf. 5:2–3, where Moses says: “The Lord our God has made a covenant with us on Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (translation of Buber, p. 124). The firstfruits were to be presented at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, the two festivals that followed the harvests and the processing of their products. On the connection between the Feast of Weeks and the offering of the firstfruits, see Num 28:26. Unlike Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the offering of firstfruits was a new religious institution in ancient Israel, for before taking possession of the land, they were not an agricultural people. The individual worshiper was instructed to make a public declaration—“and the priest shall receive the basket from your hand.” According refers to the entire ceremony (see Tigay (טנא) ”to Philo, the word translated “basket [1996] 239). On the presentation of these firstfruits, see also 18:4–5, which as noted above is located precisely in the center of the central core of Deuteronomy within what I have called the law of the Levites (18:1–8). 5 The liturgical declaration of the individual worshiper at the central sanctuary is in the form of a prayer addressed in the first person to God, which is somewhat analogous to the use of the Lord’s Prayer in Christian worship through the ages. The meaning of as “ready to אבד is not certain. The translation of ארמי אבד the Hebrew phrase perish” in KJV still has its advocates. Others suggest “straying” or “fugitive.” The translation “wandering Aramean” retains the alliterative quality of the original Hebrew expression and can be understood in poetic fashion to include all of the above options. Buber interprets the word “gone astray” as pastoral language (On the Bible, 127), “used when a sheep has lost the flock to which it belongs (Jer. 50:6;Ezek. 34:4, 16; Psalm 119:176).” He called attention to “the same words and with the same meaning, though in quite a different tone of voice,” when Abraham (whom Buber describes as a “lost Aramean”) told the king of the Philistines about his life: “And it came to pass, when from my father’s house” (Gen 20:13). “This [התעו אתי] God caused me to go astray clause is probably very ancient, for it is unlikely that Israelite tradition would have chosen to describe Israel’s ancestors as ‘Arameans’ once the Arameans of Damascus became aggressive toward Israel in the ninth century B.C.E.” (Tigay [1996] 240). (On the “Proto-Aramean” origins of the patriarchs, see J. C. L. Gibson, “Light from Mari on the Patriarchs,” JSS 7 [1962] 44–62, esp. 51–53; idem, JNES 20 [1961] 217–38, esp. 229–34.) The reference here is to the ancestor Jacob, who went down into Egypt as an old man (Gen 47:9), with perhaps an allusion to Abraham as well, as Buber has observed. And “he sojourned there”—that is, he lived as a resident alien, which stands in sharp contrast with the status of the worshiper who is making his declaration at the central sanctuary in the land of Israel. On the meaning of the phrase “few in number,” see the list of the seventy people in Jacob’s family “who came into Egypt” in Gen 46:8– 27. From that small beginning, Israel “became a great nation, mighty and populous” in the land of Egypt. 6–9 The second part of the confession spells out what happened, as “the Egyptians … imposed upon us hard servitude” so that the people “cried out to YHWH,” who “heard our voice and … brought us forth from Egypt” in the great exodus with its awesome displays of God’s power to bring them to the promised land, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Buber notes that no peasant farmer would describe the land of his desire in this way. When the peasant praises his land, he says: “A land of wheat and barley and vines and fig trees and pomegranates” (8:8). For Buber, “The saying refers to representative products that the land offers to the newcomer without the need of any effort on his part: milk, into which the energy of the rich pastures, as it were of one tremendous oasis, is converted and honey for the refreshment of passers-by” (On the Bible, 125–26). 10–11 In the eyes of some translators and interpreters, past and present, the statement “you shall put it down before YHWH” is not consistent with v4, where the offering has already been placed “before the altar of YHWH.” Rather than resort to some sort of redactional interpretation that posits conflation of alternative versions, it is best to note the concentric nature of the literary structure that alternates between description of worship and liturgical declaration. Both references are to the same act, which functions as a literary inclusion around the declaration in vv 5–9. The translation “you shall celebrate all the bounty” refers to the pilgrimage festival itself, which includes a celebratory meal at the sanctuary, much like what takes place today in the annual pilgrimage to in Islam. It should be noted, however, that the firstfruits were deposited in the central sanctuary for the priests (18:4–5). It was the annual tithe that was consumed by the worshiper and his extended family in the pilgrimage normally part of) גר festivities at the central sanctuary. The translation “sojourner” for the familiar triad: “alien,” orphan, and widow) is an attempt to call the reader’s attention he sojourned,” in v 5, for both words come from the“ ,ויגר to the inclusion it forms with same verbal stem. The prosodic analysis suggests that the ʾatnāḥ in v 11 does not represent the major break in that verse from a rhythmic point of view, and that the word translated “and to your house(hold)” is defined by what follows. In short, the Levite and the resident alien in our midst are part of our household so far as God is concerned.

Explanation Individual worshipers in ancient Israel were instructed to present a basket of firstfruits of the harvest to God every year. The firstfruits in question are not to be equated with the so-called , when one “first put the sickle to the standing grain” (16:9) in early spring, which took place on the day after the Sabbath following the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover (Lev 23:10). That presentation of the firstfruits of the new barley crop was ceremonial in nature, in anticipation of the barley and wheat harvests to be completed in the next seven weeks. It marked the beginning of the countdown of forty-nine days (seven weeks) to the Feast of Weeks at which time the liturgy of 26:1–11 was presented in the ceremony of the presentation of firstfruits at the central sanctuary. The basket of firstfruits was a token payment of the tithe, which was presented when the harvest was completed. The firstfruits of summer and fall produce were presented in like manner at the Festival of Booths (Sukkoth) in the fall. The presentation of firstfruits was a thanksgiving offering that the worshiper brought to the central sanctuary to “celebrate all the bounty that YHWH your God has given to you and to your house” (v 11). The confession of faith that every worshiper recited before the priest at the altar explains the meaning of the ceremony. Before the basket was placed in front of the altar, the one offering sacrifice began his presentation with an acknowledgment that he has “entered the land that YHWH swore to our fathers to give to us” (v 3). The basket was then taken by the priest, who placed it before the altar (v 4), as the worshiper continued his confession of faith, recalling the bitter experience of slavery in Egypt from which God delivered them “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with great terror and with signs and with portents” to bring them “to this place … a land flowing with milk and honey” (vv 8–9). The worshiper then declared that he had brought the firstfruits to YHWH and bowed down in worship there at the altar (v 10). When the service was completed, the offerer was charged to “celebrate all the bounty that YHWH your God has given to you” in a feast, which included the worshiper’s entire household, along with “the Levite and the sojourner” (v 11). It is good that we should be cheerful in the presentation of our gifts and dues to God for his provision, and that we should enjoy the use of them in fellowship with our family, those committed to God’s work, and those in our midst who are in special need.

2. Declaration of the Triennial Tithe (26:12–15) Bibliography

Airoldi, N. “La Cosidetta ‘Decima’ Israelitica Antica.” Bib 55 (1974) 179–210. Baumgarten, J. M. “On the Non-Literal Use of ma˓ăśēr/dekatē.” JBL 103 (1984) 245–61. Bayliss, M. “The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia.” Iraq 35 (1973) 115–25. Cazelles, H. “Sur le rituel du Deutéronome (Deut 26, 14).” RB 55 (1948) 54–71. Fohrer, G. “Twofold Aspects of Hebrew Words.” In FS D. Winton Thomas. 1968. 95–103, esp. 99. Galling, K. “Der Beichtspiegel: Ein gattungsgeschichtliches Studium.” ZAW 47 (1929) 125–30. Gray, J.The Legacy of Canaan. 1965. 65, 253.———. “Ugarit.” In Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Ed. D. Winton Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. 149–50. Grieshammer, R. “Zum ‘Sitz im Leben’ des negativen Sündenbekenntnisses.” In XVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 1.–5. Oktober 1972 in Lübeck. Vortrɛge. Ed. W. Voigt. ZDMG Sup II. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974. 19– 25. Hoffner, H. A. “Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ˒ôḇ.” JBL 86 (1967) 385– 401. Kutsch, E. “Trauerbräuche’ und ‘Selbstminderungsriten’ im alten Testament.” In K. Lüthi, E. Kutsch, and W. Dantine. Drei Wiener Antrittsreden. ThSt 78. Zurich: EVZ, 1965. 25– 42. Lewis, T. J. Cults of the Dead. 1989. 97, 102–3. Rabban, N. “Lipney YHWH.” Tarbiz 23 (1952) 1–8 (Heb.). Sheriffs, D. C. T. “The Phrases ina IGI DN and lipĕnēy Yhwh in Treaty and Covenant Contexts.” JNSL 7 (1979) 55–68.Sukenik, E. L. “Arrangements for the Cult of the Dead in Ugarit and Samaria.” In Memorial Lagrange. Paris: Gabalda, 1940. 59– 65. Wildberger, H. Jahwes Eigentumsvolk. ATANT 37. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1960. 18–19, 92–93 Wilson, I. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. 181–87. Yahuda, A. S. The Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relation to Egyptian. London: Oxford UP, 1933. 271– 73.Zakovitch, Y. “Some Remnants of Ancient Laws in the Deuteronomic Code.” ILR 9 (1974) 346–51.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Declaration of the Triennial Tithe at Local Sanctuaries [(5:5):(6:4):(4:6):(5:5)]

12 When you finish / tithing / all the tithe of your produce / 18 3 in the third year / the year of the tithe // 18 2_ You shall give it to the Levite / 11 1 to the alien / to the orphan and to the 18 2 widow / that they may eat in your towns / and they may be 18 2_ satisfied // 13 And you shall say / before YHWH your God / 17 2 “I have purged the sacred portion out of the house / 12 1 And also I have given it to the Levite / 11 1 and to the alien / to the orphan and to the widow / 17 2_ According to all your commandment / that you commanded 16 2 me // I have not passed over any of your commandments / 13 1 indeed I have not forgotten // 10 1_ 14 I have not eaten any of it / as my own wealth / 17 2 and I have not purged any of it / while unclean / 16 2_ And I have not given any of it \ to the dead // 15 1 I have hearkened / to the voice \ of YHWH my God / 16 2 I have done / according to all / that you commanded me // 18 3_ 15 Look down from your holy habitation / from the heavens / 18 2 and bless your people / Israel / and \ the ground / 19 3_ Which you have given \ to us // 10 1 just as you swore \ to our fathers / 15 1 _3 14 ס // a land / flowing (with) milk / and honey

Notes

.tithing,” as the irregular inf. constr“ , לַ ﬠְ שֵׂ ר a. Prosodic analysis supports MT.12 .to tithe,” suggested byBHS“ , לְ ﬠַ שֵּׂ ר rather than the emendation to 12.b-b. LXX reads the clause τὸ δεύτερον ἐπιδέκατον δώσεις, “the second tithe you .( שׁנת המעשׂר נתתה =) ”shall give 12.c. Adding waw-conj. with some Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, LXX, Syr., and Vg. 13.a. LXX reads ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας μου, “out of my house.” The same meaning is my house,” which would“ , בֵ תִ י the house,” to“ , הַ בַּ ִ י ת conveyed without emending MT add one mora to the length of the line. 13.b. Many Heb. MSS, SP, a codex of LXX, and Tg. Ps.-J. omit waw-conj. 13.c. Some Heb. MSS, LXX, Syr., and Vg. add waw-conj. 13.d. One LXX codex omits waw-conj.

your commandments.” Prosodic“ , מ צ וֹ תֶ י � e. One Heb. MS, SP, and Syr. read.13 .your commandment,” with one less mora“ ,מצותך analysis slightly supports MT

”.your commandment“ ,מצותך f. Cairo Geniza fragments and LXX read.13 Prosodic analysis supports MT. 14.a. Adding waw-conj. with a few Heb. MSS, LXX, and Syr. to achieve closer balance in mora count.

”with Craigie and others as meaning “strength” or “wealth באני b. Interpreting.14 (see Comment below). 14.c. All but one of the LXX codices omit waw-conj. 14.d. LXX except for the Lucianic recension omits waw-conj.

14.e. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 14.f. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn here as conj. according to all“ ,ככל אשׁר for MT ,(כאשׁר =) ”g-g. LXX reads καθά, “just as.14 that.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

look down,” with no change in“ ,השׁקיפה for MT השׁקף a-a. SP reads.15 meaning. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

15.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn here as conj. 15.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 15.d. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The triennial cycle of Torah readings in ancient Israel is related to the tradition of a special tithe in Deuteronomy, which was presented at the end of every third year (see 14:28–29 and Excursus: “The Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings in Palestinian Judaism”). Since tithes were not presented in the seventh year of a sabbatical cycle, four years elapsed between the second “poor-tithe” and the first “poor-tithe” of the next cycle. According to the Mishnah the declaration of the “poor-tithe” was abolished in late times (135–104 B.C.E.) by the high priest Yohanan Hyrcanus (Tigay [1996] 242). The boundaries of the literary unit in 26:12–15 are marked by sĕtûmāʾ layout markers at the beginning and end. The shift to first-person direct speech in v 13 serves to set the actual declaration itself off as a separate literary unit, which may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A I have purged the sacred portion from my household 26:13ab B According to all your commandment, which you commanded me 26:13c C I have not forgotten 26:13d X I have not purged it while unclean 26:14a C′ I have obeyed the voice of YHWH my God 26:14b B According to all that you commanded me 26:14c A′ Look down from the heavens and bless your people Israel 26:15

(בערתי) ”In the outer frame of this structure the worshiper declares that he has “purged the sacred portion from his household as commanded (v 13), and that it is now YHWH’s turn to come through with his promised blessing (v 15). The center reinforces the declaration as the worshiper swears he has avoided any ritual impurity that might defile his offering (v 14a). The inner frame states the case even more emphatically as the worshiper insists that he has not forgotten anything (v 13d), and that he has been obedient to the voice of YHWH his God (v 14b). The declaration of the triennial tithe is in three parts: a positive statement in which the worshiper declares his fulfillment of the law relating to the tithe in the third year (v 13), a negative statement that affirms that the task has been carried out properly (v 14), and a prayer for God’s continued blessing on both the people of Israel and the ground that brings forth the harvest (v 15). This law on the triennial tithe (26:12–15) shapes further details in the narrative (Num 20) of Edom’s refusal to grant Israel passage through their land (cf. in (הקדשׁ) ”Carmichael, LNB, 309–11). The references to “the sacred portion in v 15a are reflected in the statement (מעון קדשׁך) ”v 13b and “your holy habitation .( בקדשׁ) ”in Num 20:1 that the people stayed “in Kadesh

Comment 12 According to the law of the tithe in 14:22–27, “the tithe of your produce” was presented annually at the central sanctuary, where it was consumed by the worshiper and his household during the three pilgrimage festivals. At the end of every three years, the tithe was presented in the local towns to provide for needs of the “Levite,” the “alien,” the “orphan,” and the “widow” (see 14:28–29). The phrase “in the third year, the year of the tithe,” refers to the three-year cycle, which was repeated and then followed by the sabbatical year, when no tithe was given because no crops were planted. 13 The phrase “before YHWH” refers to God’s presence, as experienced in the context of formal worship. When such worship is at the central sanctuary during one of the three annual pilgrimage festivals, the phrase “the place where YHWH chooses to establish his name” is included in the immediate context, which is not the case here. In this instance the worshiper addressed God at a local assembly, where the triennial tithe was deposited. is uncertain. The ”[באני] The translation “I have not eaten … as my own wealth 14 is sometimes rendered “while in mourning.” The reading here is based on באני word that of Craigie, “in my own wealth” ([1976] 323), using the arguments of Fohrer (FS D. Winton Thomas, 98). Though Galling has described the following three negative statements as a confession of innocence by which the individual declares his fitness to participate in formal worship (ZAW 47 [1929] 125–30), Mayes has correctly shown that ritual purity is not the primary focus in this instance ([1981] 336). The statement “I have not purged any of it while unclean” is necessary because of Num 19:22. The statement “I have not given any of it to the dead” refers to the common practice in antiquity of providing food and drink for the dead in Sheol. “In some graves excavated at Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, holes were found in the floors, similar to holes found in tombs at Ugarit, which served as receptacles for food and drink offerings to the dead. The Torah does not forbid this practice, but because contact with the dead is ritually defiling, it prohibits the use of the tithe for it” (Tigay [1996] 244; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 97, 102–3). Cazelles proposed an interesting reading of the text (RB 55 as direct objects of בטמא andבאני in which he interpreted the words ,(71–54 [1948] the verbs in the sense of “(the bread) of mourning” and “the unclean thing,” referring to here. Though his (למת) ”a cultic meal on behalf of the god Baal, who is “the dead interpretation fits the context well, it remains uncertain, as Mayes has noted ([1981] 336–37). is in “the (מעון קדשׁך) ”According to Deuteronomy, God’s “holy habitation 15 heavens” and not in some building made by human beings. “The words ‘from heaven’ seem to be an explanatory appendage intended to prevent misconstruing the expression ‘holy habitation’ as referring to the sanctuary” (Weinfeld, DDS, 198). As Tigay notes, the prayer that God would “bless your people Israel” “is typical of prescribed prayers in Judaism: the individual does not pray on his own behalf but on behalf of the entire Jewish people or the whole human race” ([1996] 244).

Explanation The law of the triennial tithe appears in 14:28–29, which stipulates that every three years the tithe was to be used locally “in your towns” (14:28;26:12). The principle behind the law of the triennial “poor-tithe” remains applicable: we are commanded to give of our means to assist the poor. It would be well if worshipers today faced a public moment of accountability in such matters, as did the people of ancient Israel.

B. Mutual Commitments between God and Israel in Covenant Renewal (26:16–19) Bibliography

Buis, P. “La nouvelle alliance.” VT 18 (1968) 1–15. Cody, A. “When Is the Chosen People Called a Gōy?” VT 14 (1964) 1–6. Coppens, J. “La doctrine biblique sur l’amour de Dieu et du prochain.” ETL 40 (1964) 252–99. Eichrodt, W. “Darf Man heute noch von einem Gottesbund mit Israel reden?” TZ 30 (1974) 193–206. Falk, Z. W. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964. 134–53. Levanon, M. “he˒marta, he˒emirkha.” Sinai 51 (1962) 238–40 (Heb.). Levin, C.Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Licht, J. “The Biblical Claim of Establishment.” Shnaton 4 (1980) 107–8 (Heb.). Lohfink, N. “Dt 26, 17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel.’ ” ZKT 91 (1969) 517–53 (repr. in Studium zum Deuteronomium I. 1990. 211– 61). McCarthy, D. J. Treaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. 1981. 182–85. Mercati, G. “Una Singolare Versione di Dt 26, 17–18 e l’Originale di Essa.” Bib 24 (1943) 201–4. Muffs, Y. Love and Joy. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. 51. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. 1970. 106–7. Schmid, H. H. “Ich will euer Gott sein, und ihr sollt mein Volk sein: Die sogenannte Bundesformel und die Frage nach der Mitte des Alten Testaments.” In FS G. Bornkamm. 1980. 1–25. Vriezen, T. C.“Das Hiphil von ˒amar in Dt 26, 17– 18.” JEOL 17 (1964) 207–10. Wiener, H. M. “Zur Deuteronomiumfrage.” MGWJ 72 (1928) 24–48. Wildberger, H. Jahwes Eigentumsvolk. ATANT 37. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1960. 18–19, 92–93. Wolff, H. W. “Jahwe als Bundesmittler.” VT 6 (1956) 316–20.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Mutual Commitments between God and Israel in Covenant Renewal [(8:7):7:8]

16 THIS DAY / YHWH your God commands you to do / 22 2 these statutes / and the judgments // 18 2 And you shall be careful to do / them / with all your heart / 22 3 and with all your soul // 7 1_ 17 YHWH you have declared / TODAY // 11 2 to be your God / and to walk in his ways / 21 2 And to keep his statutes and his commands / 14 1 and his judgments / and to hearken to his voice // 17 2_ 18 And YHWH / has declared you TODAY / 13 2 to be his / treasured people / 11 2 to you // 7 1 [ דבר] As he has spoken so keep \ all his commandments // 10 1 19 so that he will set you high / 9 1_ Above all the nations / that he has made / for praise / 17 3 and for fame and for honor // 10 1 And for you to be | a holy people / 11 2 _2 16 ס // [ דבר] to YHWH your God / just as he has spoken

Notes 17.a. In BHS Hemple argues that the text of vv 17–19 has been disordered and suggests rearrangement. Prosodic analysis supports the text as received in MT.

,and his judgments,” is omitted in one Heb. MS, SP“ ,ומשׁפטיו b-b. The term.17 and LXX. The prosodic analysis here supports MT. 18.a. See Note 17.a.

which ,( ִ ל הְ י וֹ תְ � =) ”b. Some LXX texts read γενέσθαι σε, “that you should be.18 appears to be an interpretive gloss. Prodosic analysis supports MT.

to you,” is omitted in one Heb. MS and some LXX“ , לָ � c. The term.18 witnesses. Tg. Ps.-J. reads pl. suff. The prosodic analysis supports MT.

18.d. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of the misplaced sillûq. 19.a. See Note 17.a. 19.b. The conjunction is omitted in some Heb. MSS, SP, and LXX, which is possible in terms of the prosodic analysis presented here.

and for you to be,” as disj. Letteris“ ,ולהית� c. Reading metheg plus dargā on.19 has two methegs on this word.

Form/Structure/Setting G. E. Wright says vv 7–18 “are couched in formal, legal phraseology so that the people can have no doubt of the binding nature of the pact which they have entered” (IB 2:488). The power of these concluding injunctions in the laws of Deuteronomy is apparent to anyone who takes the time and effort to read the words out loud. The text here is divided into two parts that present mutual commitments made between the people of Israel (vv 16–17) and YHWH their God (vv18–19). The beginning of each section is marked by temporal terms (“this day” and “today”) that suggest that we are dealing with ritual activity that is repeated (i.e., brought into the cultic present). The first section is framed by repetition of the words “statutes” and “judgments” (vv 16 and 17), whereas the second is framed by the parallel expressions “his treasured people” (v 18) and “a holy people to YHWH your God” (v 19). The carefully constructed two-part unit of thought in vv 16–19 functions as the center of a concentric structure that connects the two halves of the inner frame of Deuteronomy: Deut 26:16–19 as the Connecting Link for the Inner Frame A Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal under Moses 11:26–28 B Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal at Shechem 11:29–32 X Mutual commitments made between YHWH and Israel 26:16–19 B Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal at Shechem 27:1–26 A′ Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal under Moses 28:1–69 (Eng. 29:1) The final two paragraphs in Deut 11 both deal with the matter of blessings and curses in the context of covenant renewal, with an important distinction. In 11:26–28 the focus is in the present with Moses on the plains of Moab; but in 11:29–32 the focus shifts to a time in the future, “when YHWH your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter to possess it, then you shall put the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal” (11:29). In the second half of the inner frame, the situation is reversed. Deut 27 concerns the future: “in the day when you cross over the Jordan into the land that YHWH your God is giving to you, and you shall set up for yourselves great stones and … plaster them with plaster” (27:2). The words of the Torah are to be written on these stones, and the people are commanded to set them up on Mount Ebal (27:4). At that time, the tribes shall be assembled “to bless the people on Mount Gerizim” and “for the curse on Mount Ebal” (27:12–13). In Deut 28 the focus shifts back to the present with Moses calling the people of Israel to decision by announcing the blessings that accompany obedience and the curses that fall on disobedience to YHWH’s commandments. The center in the above structure becomes the final paragraph in Deut 26, which functions as the conclusion to the exposition of the statutes and ordinances in Deut 12– 26, and the connecting link between Deut 11 and 27. At the same time, it is also a connecting link within another concentric structure that links the central core (Deut 12– 26) and the section on the covenant ceremony in Deut 27–30: Deut 26:16–19 as the Connecting Link with the Central Core A Ceremony of the firstfruits—first year in the land 26:1–11 B Tithe declaration—every three years in the land 26:12–15 X Mutual commitments between God and Israel 26:16–19 B Future covenant renewal at Shechem (every seven years) 27:1–26 A′ Present covenant renewal in Moab under Moses 28:1–69 (Eng. 29:1) On either side of the summary statement about the mutual commitments between God and Israel we find two separate descriptions of liturgical activity. The outer pair in this structure focuses on the present (or the immediate future, under Joshua), with a renewal of the covenant under Moses in the plains of Moab (Deut 28:1–69) set over against the firstfruits ceremony that the people are commanded to observe in the promised land, “When you have come into the land that YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance and you possess it” (26:1). The first half of the inner pair in this structural unit focuses on the payment of “the tithe of your produce in the third year (the year of the tithe), you shall give it to the Levites, to the alien, to the orphan, and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and they may be satisfied” (26:12). The other half is concerned with the regular renewal of the covenant to be carried out at Shechem, in which the twelve tribes take their stand on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal to proclaim the blessings and curses—in times to come. The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 26:16–19 within its larger literary context may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

26:12– 56 + 28 = 84 15

26:16– (= 2 35 + 21 = 46 18 × 23) 26:19 10 + 7 = 17

26:12– (= 7 (= 5 81 + 49 = 130 18 × 7) × 26) The final verse in Deuteronomy’s central core (Deut 12–26), which has 17 (the alternate divine-name number) words, is carefully integrated into its immediate literary context with a total of 130 (= 5 × 26) words in 26:12–18. Within this section, there are a total of —glory”) words in vv 16–18 and 17 words in v 19“ ,כבוד the number for ,23 × 2 =) 46 signifying that the ancient scribes (“counters”) have labored to the “glory of YHWH.”

Comment 16–17 These two verses, which summarize the commitment made by the people of Israel in their covenant with YHWH, are framed by repetition of the words “statutes” vv 16 and 17), which appear also in 12:1 to form ,משׁפטים) ”and “judgments (חקים) an envelope around the laws of the central core (Deut 12–26); and by repetition of the v 16) and “his ,מצוך) ”to command”: “God is commanding you“ ,צוה verbal root v17). The command “to do them with all your heart and with all ,מצותיו) ”commands your soul” brings to mind the Great Commandment in 6:5–6 and 10:12–13, 20–22, to love God with “all your heart and with all your being” and to “walk in all his ways”— (היום) ”that is, “to fear YHWH,”which is the beginning of spiritual wisdom. “Today means both the original day on which Moses spoke these words and each subsequent you have“ ,האמרת day when the ceremony of covenant renewal was held. The verb .to say,” which appears only here and in v 18 below“ ,אמר declared,” is the hiphil from S. Wagner translates it with the meaning “proclaim” (TDOT 1:328–29). As Mayes put it, “Whatever translation is adopted, each declaration refers to the obligations undertaken by both parties to the covenant, and the reference is to a solemn legal act whereby the covenant is agreed” ([1981] 339). 18–19 These two verses are framed by reference to the special relationship between YHWH and his people: the people of Israel are “his treasured people” (v 18). Consequently they are called to “be a holy people to YHWH” (v 19). The parallel text in Exod 19:6 has “a holy nation.” In Deuteronomy, however, the term for “nations” is reserved for non-Israelite peoples, as Mayes observes ([1981] 339). The phrase (גוי) “just as he has spoken” is repeated to form a frame around the concluding summation, in which the people are urged once again to keep all of YHWH’s commands (v18), “so that he will set you high above all the nations” (v 19) to be an object of praise and honor to YHWH among those peoples. which appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, is to be taken ,אמר The hiphil of in an intensive and not a causative sense. Israel does not cause God to say anything, nor does God cause Israel to say or do anything. The commitments made between God and Israel in covenant renewal are mutual. The translation “YHWH has declared you” is intended to suggest that the covenant relationship is seen as a marriage, as argued by M. A. Friedman “(Israel’s Response to: ‘You Are My Husband,’ ” JBL 99 [1980] 20 n. 14). Z. W. Falk suggests that the mutual commitments of vv 16–17 reflect a marriage ceremony between YHWH and his bride, Israel. He points out that in subsequent had the meaning of the marriage formula used by the levir“ מאמר rabbinic literature and of the oral declaration of divorce” (Hebrew Law in Biblical Times [1964] 135).

Explanation The brief exhortation in 26:16–19 functions as the conclusion to the exposition of the law in Deut 5–26, which was used in a covenant renewal ceremony in ancient Israel. It summarizes what has happened in that ceremony, where the words “this day” and “today” (vv 16, 17, 18) refer to both the original day on which Moses spoke and each subsequent time thereafter when the ceremony was held. S. J. DeVries has made a detailed study of the use of the word “today” (and its equivalents, which appear 49 times in Deuteronomy), in which he concludes: “his revelation is now. He is very alive and present. Israel must respond one way or another, because the voice of God is near. The word they must obey is not far off in the heavens or belonging to remote antiquity. Therefore do not defer your choice to still another ‘today’!” (“The Development of the Deuteronomic Promulgation Formula,” Bib 55 [1974] 316; see Maxwell [1987] 288–89; for an expanded discussion of this matter, see S. J. De Vries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1975). The recitation of the laws that God revealed to Moses is now complete, and attention shifts to the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people. The people solemnly declare that YHWH is their God and that they will obey him (v 17); and God, on his part, affirms that he will set them “high above all the nations … for praise and for fame and for honor” and that Israel shall be a holy people (vv 18–19). “These concluding verses … lead by implication to the substance of chs. 5–11, in which the intimate, personal relationship with God is emphasized, one which is the substance of the covenant agreement. Obedience now assumes a new aspect; it is not so much a legal duty as a response to a personal relationship with the community’s Lord and Savior” (Wright, IB 2:488). Though Israel, as the people of God, were commanded to observe the laws as delineated in Deut 12–26, the matter of greatest importance is their attitude. That they were chosen as YHWH’s “treasured people” is not a basis for pride. The privilege carries a heavy responsibility. If their obedience to God’s laws comes from the heart, then God will exalt them in such a manner that they become a source of praise and honor among the nations. How very different the situation often became through the ages. We tend to set our focus on external matters, in the mere keeping of those many commandments. When we do so, we lose sight of what it means to be God’s “treasured people” whom he sets “high above all the nations that he has made—for praise, and for fame, and for honor” (v 19). The object of that praise is not the people of Israel; it is God himself. The name we are to lift up is not ours, but his. It is not our honor that is spoken of here, but his. To be a holy people is to be a people set apart for God, and for that special task among the nations to which he has called us. The keeping of God’s commandments is not the means of our own vindication or justification before God. God chose Israel to be a special people on the basis of his own lovingkindness—it is a matter of God’s grace, and God’s grace alone. It is our heartfelt response to God’s love and commitment to us as his “treasured possession” that he desires of us by means of obedience to his commands. That is what will bring forth his praise and honor among the nations.

C. Writing the Torah on Stones and Covenant Renewal at Shechem (27:1–26) Bibliography

Bowman, J. “The Samaritans and the Book of Deuteronomy.” GOST 17 (1957–58) 9– 18. Bülow, S. “Der Berg des Fluches (Ebal).” ZDPV 73 (1957) 100–107, esp. 104 n. .im Alten Testament. BZAW 113. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969 שׁלם Eisenbeis, W. Die Wurzel .14 234–39. Eissfeldt, O. “Deuteronomium und Hexateuch.”Mitteilungen des Institus für Orientforschung 12 (1966) 17–39 (repr. in KlSchr 4:238–58). ———. “Gilgal or Shechem?” In FS G. H. Davies. 1970. Repr. 1983. 90–101. Fabry, H.-J. “Noch ein Dekalog! Die Thora des lebendigen Gottes in ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte: Ein Versuch zu Deuteronomium 27.” In Im Gesprach mit dem dreinen Gott: Elemente einer trinitarischen Theologie. FS W. Breuning. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1985. 75–96. JarosÞ, K. Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jos 24. OBO 11. Fribourg: Universitaires, 1976. Langlamet, F. Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain (Jos III- IV). CahRB 11. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. 67–68, 83. Lewy, I. “The Puzzle of Deuteronomy 27: Blessings Announced, but Curses Noted.” VT 12 (1962) 207–11. L’Hour, J. “L’alliance de Sichem.” RB 69 (1962) 5–36, 161–84. Mölle, H. Der sogenannte Landtag zu Sichem. FB 42. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. Nielsen, E. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Gad, 1959. Schmitt, G. Der Landtag von Sichem. AzT 1.15. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964. Schulz, H. “Die Fluchreihe Dtn 27.” In Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament. BZAW 114. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969. 61–71. Seebass, H. “Erwägungen zum altisraelitischen System der zwölf Stämme.” ZAW 90 (1978) 196–220, esp. 213–15. Soggin, J. A. “Zwei umstrittene Stellen aus dem Überlieferungskreis um Schekem.” ZAW 73 (1961) 78–87. Tsumura, D. T. “Hab 2, 2 in the Light of Akkadian Legal Practice.” ZAW 94 (1982) 294–95. Ulrich, E. “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” In New Qumran Texts and Studies. Ed. G. J. Brooke. Leiden: Brill, 1994.89–104. Wächter, L. “Das Baumheiligtum bei Sichem.” FolOr 17 (1976) 71–86. ———. “Die Bedeutung Sichems bei der Landnahme der Israeliten.” Wissenschaftlich Zeitschrift der … Rostock 17 (1968) 411–19. Weinfeld, M. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Bib 41 (1960) 417–27. Wright, G. E. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Wright, G. R. H. “Shechem and League Shrines.” VT 21 (1971) 572–603.

1. Shechem Ceremony Dramatizing Israel’s Covenant Responsibilities (27:1–10) Bibliography Anbar, M. “The Story about the Building of an Altar on Mount Ebal: The History of Its Composition and the Question of the Centralization of the Cult.” In Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1985. 304–9. Bowman, J. “The Exegesis of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans and among the Rabbis.” OTS 8 (1950) 220–62, esp. 228. Brichto, H. C. Problem of “Curse.” 1963. 184–86. Cazelles, H. “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” In FS R. Martin-Achard. 1984. 2–7, 33–46, esp. 38. Coogan, M. D. “Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretation of Archaeological Information.” PEQ 119 (1987) 1–8.Dexinger, F. “Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner.” In FS W. Kornfeld. 1977. 111–33, esp. 127–28. Falk, Z. W. “Sociological Notes on Deuteronomy.”DiIs 3 (1972) 37–43, esp. 43. Gill, D. “Thysia and šĕlāmîm: Questions to R. Schmid’s Das Bundesopfer in Israel.” Bib 47 (1966) 255–62. Jacob ben Aaron. “Mount Gerizim the One True Sanctuary.” BSac 64 (1907) 489–518, esp. 508. Janowski, B. “Erwägungen zur Vorgeschichte des israelitischen šĕlāmîm- Opfers.” UF 12 (1980) 231– 59. Kempinski, A. “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower.” BARev 12.1 (1986) 42– 53. Lemaire, A. “L’inscription de Balaam trouvée à DeirʿAlla: Épigraphie.” In Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, April 1984. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. 313–25, esp. 322Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. 3–52, 118–22. Licht, J. “The Biblical Claim of Establishment.” Shnaton 4 (1981) 98–128 (Heb.; Eng. summary, vii). Lods, A. “Review of Löhr, Deuteronomium; Wiener, Altars; Siebens, Origine.” RHR 50 (1929) 229–37, esp. 232– 34. MacDonald, J.“Samaritans.” EncJud 14:726–58. Machlin, M. Joshua’s Altar: The Dig at Mount Ebal. New York: Morrow, 1991. Merendino, R. P. “Dt 27, 1–8: Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” BZ 24 (1980) 194–207. Milgrom, J. “Sacrifices and Offerings.” IDBSup. 769. Muhly, J. “How Iron Technology Changed the Ancient World.” BARev 8.6 (1982) 46. Nelson, R. D. “Josiah in the Book of Joshua.” JBL 100 (1981) 531–40, esp. 533. Nielsen, E.“Historical Perspectives and Geographical Horizons: On the Question of North-Israelite Elements in Deuteronomy.” In Law, History, and Tradition. Copenhagen: Gad, 1983. 82–92. ———. Shechem:A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955. 59–61. Rothstein, W. Die Juden und Samaritaner. BWAT 3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908. Shanks, H. “Two Israelite Cult Sites Now Questioned.” BARev 14.1 (1988) 48–52. Vaux, R. de. Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice. 1964. 32–33. Walkenhorst, K. H. Der Sinai im liturgischen Verständis der deuteronomistischen und priesterlichen Tradition. BBB 33. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. Weinfeld, M. “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents.” In Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1985. 83. Wiener, H. M. The Altars of the Old Testament. Beigabe zur OLZ. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927. Wright, G. E. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. 9.Zertal, A. “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mount Ebal.” In Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden. Ed. M. Augustin et al. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988. 137–54. ———. “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mount Ebal?” BARev 11.1 (1985) 26–43. ———. “How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong?” BARev 12.1 (1986) 43–53. ———. “Mount Ebal—1983/84.” In Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1984, Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, 1985. 82–86.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Moses and the Elders Command the People to Keep the Commandment [4:5]

1 Now Moses / and the elders of Israel commanded / 15 2 the people / saying // 9 2 “Keep / all the commandment / 10 2 that I / command you / TODAY // 16 3_

Write the Torah on Plastered Stones on Mount Ebal [(6:5):(5:6):(4:5)]

2 And it shall be / in the day / when you cross over the Jordan / 19 3 into the land / that YHWH your God / is giving to you // 23 3_ And you shall set up for yourselves / great stones / 19 2 and you shall plaster them / with plaster // 11 2 3 and you shall write upon them / 10 1_ All the words / of this Torah / when you cross over // 17 3 in order / that you may come into the land / 17 2_ That YHWH your God / is giving to you / 16 2 a land flowing with milk \ and honey / 13 1 just as YHWH God of your fathers / spoke / to you // 20 3_ 4 And it will be / when you cross over the Jordan / 14 2 you shall set up / these stones / 19 2_ That I / command you / TODAY \ on Mount Ebal // 22 3 and you shall plaster them / with plaster // 10 2_

Erect the Altar of YHWH on Mount Ebal and Offer Sacrifices [(5:4):(4:5)]

5 And you shall build there / an altar / to YHWH / your God // 24 4 an altar of stones / 8 1 You shall not wield upon them / an iron tool // 12 2 6 of unhewn stones / you shall build it / 12 2_ It is the altar \ of YHWH your God // 12 1 and you shall offer upon it \ burnt offerings / 14 1 to YHWH / your God // 10 2_ 7 And you shall sacrifice peace offerings / and eat there // 17 2 and you shall rejoice / before / YHWH your God // 18 3_

Write the Torah on Plastered Stones “Very Plainly” [4] 8 And you shall write upon the stones / all the words / 18 2 _2 16 ס // of this Torah / very plainly

Moses’ Pronouncement and Summation [7:(7:4)]

9 And Moses spoke / together with the Levitical priests / 20 2 to all Israel / saying // 11 2 “Keep silence / and hear / O Israel / 11 3_ THIS DAY / you have become the people / of YHWH / your 23 4 God // 10 and you shall hearken / to the voice / of YHWH your God // 18 3_ And you shall observe his commandments \ and his statutes / 17 1 _3 15 ס // ”that / I command you / TODAY

Notes

the people.” Prosodic analysis“ ,את־העם a-a. Some LXX witnesses omit.1 supports MT.

;”keep“ ,שׁמר add the missing vowel, for MT ,שׁמור b. Some Heb. MSS read.1 they kept.” The more difficult reading of MT is“ ,שׁמרו SP, Syr., Tg., and Vg. read retained, with inf. functioning as impv. 3.a. Some LXX witnesses and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl. forms.

3.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ,האלה a. The ʾatnāḥ is misplaced in this verse, and should be placed after.4 .today,” is read as conj“ ,היום these.” The ṭip̱ ḥāʾ under“ 4.b-b. SP reads Mount Gerizim.

”.stones“ ,אבנים fem. pl.) to agree with 3) ־הן a. A number of Heb. MSS read.5

6.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 6.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ parvum as conj. 7.a. Some LXX witnesses add κυρίῳ (τῷ θεῷ σου), “to the Lord (your God).” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

.to make clear.” See Comment on 1:5“ , בָּ אֵ ר a. A number of Heb. MSS read.8 9.a. Some Heb. MSS, Syr., and some LXX witnesses add waw-conj., reading “the priests and the Levites.” The more difficult reading of MT is followed here.

.holy”; cf. 28:9“ ,קדשׁ b. SP and some LXX witnesses add.9

.his commandments,” with Q and Cairo Geniza fragments“ ,מצותיו a-a. Reading.10

10.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

Form/Structure/Setting The structure of Deut 27 has puzzled scholars through the centuries. Its content interrupts the natural connection between Deut 26 and 28, centered in events on the plains of Moab under Moses. Here the focus shifts to Shechem, which is somewhat distant from where the people of Israel crossed the Jordan River near Jericho and further than the people could journey in a single day, contrary to what a superficial reading of 27:2 might suggest. Important examples of covenant documents and ceremonies have emerged in the large number of international treaties preserved in texts from all over the ancient Near Eastern world. Although these treaties are known primarily from Hittite sources, there is no reason to believe that the Hittites originated the treaty form. Such treaties are intrinsically cross-cultural in nature and certainly influenced the structure and nature of the Sinai covenant and its renewal, especially as reflected in the covenant ceremony presented in Deut 27–30. In terms of the prosodic analysis of the Hebrew text, 27:1–10 is in five parts: vv 1, 2–4, 5–7, 8, and 9–10. The Numeruswechsel before the temporal marker “today” separates the opening verse from what follows and establishes the boundaries of 27:2–4, which are also marked by repetition of the words “cross over the Jordan” followed by “you shall plaster them with plaster.” The sĕtûmāʾ layout marker after v 8 breaks vv 8– 10 into two parts. Before examining further the structural detail from a prosodic point of view, it is useful to review the overall structure of Deut 27, which may be outlined as follows: A Keep all the commandment that I command you today 27:1 B Write the Torah on stones and build an altar on Mount Ebal 27:2–8 X Summary appeal for obedience 27:9–10 B Proclamation of blessings and curses by the twelve tribes 27:11–13 A′ Twelve curses recited from Mount Ebal on hidden sins 27:14–26 The outer frame in this structure moves from a summary command to keep all the commandment (v 1) to twelve curses that are to be recited from Mount Ebal concerning hidden sins (vv 14–26), with a second summary appeal for obedience to God’s commandments in the center (vv 9–10). The inner frame moves from the command to write the words of the Torah on plastered stones and to build a stone altar on Mount Ebal (vv 2–8) to the proclamation of blessings and curses by the twelve tribes there at Shechem (vv 11–13). The stones of 27:5–6 are the unhewn stones from which the altar is built, whereas the stones of v 8 are the great plastered stones of vv 2–4, on which the Torah is inscribed for all to see. This becomes clear in light of the five-part concentric structure of vv 1–10, which may be outlined as follows: A Moses’ summary commandment 27:1 B Write the Torah on plastered stones on Mount Ebal 27:2–4 X Erect an altar of unhewn stones there and offer sacrifices 27:5–7 B Write the Torah on plastered stones—very plainly 27:8 A′ Moses’ pronouncement and summary commandment 27:9–10 The boundary between vv 8 and 9 is marked by the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker, which suggests that vv 9–10 are set off from what precedes and that they play a role in larger structures within Deuteronomy. For the section as a whole, the phrase “all the commandment” (v 1) forms an inclusion with “all the words of this Torah” in v 8, and with the words “his commandments and his statutes” in v 10. It is the whole of Deuteronomy that is to be made “very plain” for all the people assembled there by displaying the Torah on great plastered stones for all to see. “Rabbinic exegesis took the requirement of making the Teaching clear to mean that it was to be written on the stones in seventy languages so that all nations might avail themselves of it” (Tigay [1996] 250, citing m. Sot. 7:5; t. Sot. 8:6; Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Yerushalmi). stones,” appears as a framing device around vv 2–8, and in the“ ,אבנים The word structural center of that subunit, which may be outlined as follows: A Set up stones and write on them the words of this Torah 27:2–3 B Set up these plastered stones on Mount Ebal 27:4 X Build there an altar of unhewn stones to YHWH 27:5–6a B Offer sacrifices, eat there, and rejoice before YHWH 27:6b–7 A′ Write upon the stones the words of this Torah 27:8 The stones of vv 5–6 are the unhewn stones from which the altar is built, whereas the stones of vv 2–4 and 8 are the great plastered stones, on which the Torah is inscribed for all to see. It is interesting to note that, in spite of its brevity, this summary appeal for obedience may be outlined in similar fashion: A Moses and Levitical priests speak to the people: 27:9a B Keep silence and hear, O Israel! 27:9b X This day you have become the people of God. 27:9c B Hear the voice of YHWH! 27:10a A′ You shall do as I have commanded you. 27:10b–c At the center of this structure, which is also the structural center of chap. 27 itself, we have the simple affirmation: “This day you have become the people of YHWH your God” (v 9d). The verb “to hear” appears in the imperative form on either side urging the people of Israel to listen to the voice of YHWH. The larger frame indicates that Moses (along with the Levitical priests) told the people to do what YHWH has commanded them to do (cf. the discussion of 1:1–6a). The evidence gathered by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in 27:1–11 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

27:1–4 43 (= 17 + 26) + 39 = 82 27:5–8 26 + 15 = 41

27:9 8 + 9 = 17

27:10 4 + 9 = 13

27:1–10 81 + 72 = 153 (= 9 × 17) There are a total of 153 (= 9 × 17) words in this section, which is also the sum of the numbers one through seventeen. There are 43 (= 17 + 26) words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 1– 4 and 26 words before ʾatnāḥ in vv 5–8. The 17 words of v 9 are augmented by 13 words in v 10, so as to reach the grand total of 153 (= 9 × 17) words in the passage as a whole. On the use of the numbers 17 and 26 as divine-name numbers, see Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition.”

Comment 1 “Moses and the elders of Israel”—this is the only place in which Moses is joined by the elders in commanding the people to observe “the commandment” (cf. also v 9, where Moses is joined by the Levitical priests). Craigie says the wording here is appropriate because Moses would not be present at the ceremony of covenant renewal on Mount Ebal: “Therefore a particular responsibility would fall on the elders of the people to ensure that the injunction was carried out” ([1976] 327). The phrase “all the commandment” refers to all the laws of Deuteronomy, which is equivalent to “all the words of this Torah” in vv 3 and 8. The phrase “that I command you” appears to be in some tension with the opening words of the verse, in which “Moses and the elders of Israel” are speaking. 2–3 The phrase “in the day when you cross over the Jordan” cannot be meant literally, since Mount Ebal is thirty miles from Jericho and four thousand feet higher. Nonetheless, as Mayes puts it, “this definite statement cannot be taken vaguely … [but rather] points to an action to be undertaken as soon as the Jordan has been crossed” ([1981] 340). With a number of other scholars, Mayes argues for “an intentional conflation of traditions, those of Shechem where Israel’s covenant tradition was particularly preserved, and those of Gilgal … where memories of Israel’s first entry into the land were preserved” ([1981] 341). Zertal suggests that the historical crossing of the Jordan was actually farther north near the village of Adam where the Jabbok enters the Jordan—opposite the Wadi Faria. This is where Abraham entered Canaan in an earlier era, when he “traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem.… So he built an altar there to the LORD” (Gen 12:6–7 NIV). If so, Gilgal is to be located in the vicinity of Mount Ebal, and the injunction here to set up the great plastered stones and the altar of unhewn stones on that very day is to be taken literally. The covenant ceremony was to take place at the Israelites’ first camp in the promised land near Shechem. While they were encamped there, a number of momentous events occurred: Joshua circumcised all the males who had been born in their wilderness sojourn, the people celebrated the first Passover in the land, the manna ceased, the people ate the produce of the land, and the Israelites launched their military campaign for the land from there. That “conquest” was subsequently celebrated annually as YHWH’s “Holy War,” with Jericho and Ai as the primary focus in the repeated celebration of the ritual conquest in the spring festival of Passover. Tigay suggests that the writing on “plaster” was done by engraving the text “through the plaster into the stone” such that “the white plaster would highlight the dark color of the letters” ([1996] 248). On the phrase “a land flowing with milk and honey,” see the Comment on 6:3 and literature cited in the bibliography there. 4 The summit of Mount Ebal allows a person to see most of the marvelous vision of the promised land that Moses saw from Mount Nebo (cf. 34:1–3). The ancient city of Shechem is located in the valley, some 1,200 feet below the summit of Mount Ebal and its sister Mount Gerizim, and was an important site in Israel’s traditions (see Gen 33:19, 20; Josh 24). Excavations by Adam Zertal have revealed a structure from the early Iron Age on Mount Ebal that a number of scholars believe to be Joshua’s altar (see picture of artist’s sketch in the front of WBC 6A, and Machlin, Joshua’s Altar,112). Though Coogan’s conclusion that “it is misleading and ultimately unhelpful for the larger historical task of a biblical archaeologist … to presume that [it was] Israelite” (PEQ 119 [1987] 1–8), the fact remains that the site fits all four of his own criteria for a cultic site from archeological remains as well as the general picture in terms of the biblical account. Some scholars have suggested that the reading of “Gerizim” for “Ebal” in SP is original and that the subsequent change in MT is to be explained as anti- Samaritan polemic (cf. Bülow, ZDPV 73 [1958] 104 n. 14; Mayes [1981] 341). It is more likely that the Samaritan tradition of celebrating Passover on the mountain associated with the blessing emerged in a later period when the covenant renewal at the original central sanctuary in Shechem was no longer observed there. By then, the celebration of Passover as a pilgrimage festival was already held on an annual basis at the battle camp of Gilgal located near Jericho. The second half of v 4, “and you shall plaster them with plaster,” repeats the command given in v 2 to form a frame around the vv 2–4 as a literary subunit. 5–7 According to the prescription of Exod 20:25, “an altar of stones” was constructed of uncut stones. Such an altar was found in the excavations at Arad and earlier in various Canaanite sites. The reason for prohibiting the use of “an iron tool” in connection with religious ceremonies is not known. In the “burnt offerings” and the “peace offerings” offered in the covenant on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:5), most of the flesh was eaten by the worshiper and thus the offering was appropriate for a festival. Levine argues that what is called a “peace offering” here was “an ancient sacrifice, probably introduced into the Israelite cult before the beginnings of the monarchy” (In the Presence of the Lord, 45). It later became an element of regular public worship, particularly within the context of the Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15–21). 8 The “stones” here refers to the plastered stones of vv 2–4, not the unhewn stones includes a (באר היטב) ”of the altar (in vv 5–7). The phrase translated “very plainly form of the verb that appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Deut 1:5 and Hab 2:2, with the sense of making a written statement plain or distinct. In postbiblical denotes an exposition, or commentary. Tsumura has argued for בִּ י א וּ ר Hebrew the term parallels in Akkadianburru, the D stem of bâru, meaning “to establish the true legal situation (ownership, liability, etc.) by a legal procedure involving ordeal, oath, or testimony” (ZAW 94 [1982] 294–95). 9–10 On the phrase “Moses … with the Levitical priests,” see v 1 above. It is interesting to note that the shift from third-person address (v 9) to first-person singular, “that I command you,” parallels the usage in v 1 to form an envelope around vv 1–10 as a literary unit. The unusual grouping of leadership titles with and without Moses in vv 1, 9, 11, and 14 serve as rhetorical markers for the beginning of the four major sections of the chapter: vv1–8, 9–10, 11–13, and 14–26. The terminology “you shall observe his commandments and his statutes” (v 10) connects with that of 26:16–19, as all Israel” (v 9), also functions“ ,כל־ישׁראל Mayes ([1979] 343) observes. The phrase as an envelope around Deuteronomy as a whole (in 1:1 and 34:12).

Explanation Deuteronomy constitutes the essence of the culture of ancient Israel. As such, its content needed to be communicated to each member of that national entity. To that end the book became part of the public observance of covenant renewal at Shechem. Like the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia, the “Code of Moses,” as recorded in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, was inscribed on great stone stela for all to see when they assembled to offer sacrifices on Mount Ebal and to remember YHWH’s Holy War in the days of Moses and his successor Joshua. Much effort was spent in ancient Israel to put the content of Deuteronomy in the hearts and minds of the common people by means of musical recitation and dramatic performance within the context of public festivals. The text was on public display for all to see, on great plastered stela alongside the altar that was the focus of sacrificial offerings in Mount Ebal. That same text was sung by the Levitical priests and committed to memory by the worshipers as well. The Christian church can learn much from the example of ancient Israel in this regard. It is not enough merely to hand out copies of the Bible to our children as they move from the third to the fourth grade. We must find ways to get the content of that book into the hearts and minds of all our people by various means, which include the prominent display of the text itself in public worship. One of the curious features of modern worship within the evangelical churches today is the absence of public recitation of the Scriptures as an end in itself. Much time is given to singing songs of praise, many of which are simply biblical texts put to music. But very little time is given to “hearing” the Bible recited, other than perhaps the text on which the pastor’s sermon of the morning is based. We need to find ways to expose our people to the whole of the Bible in public worship in the manner that ancient Israel experienced Deuteronomy on Mount Ebal. The reason that the text of Deuteronomy was written on great stone stela for all to see was that the people might learn to “keep all the commandment that I command you today” (27:1). The text of “all the words of this Torah” was to be written “very plainly” (v 8) so that everyone would know what God requires of them. We need to find ways today to accomplish the same end more effectively. If we love God, we will keep his commandments “with all our heart and with all our being.” We are indeed a “treasured” and a “holy people”; but if we are to be truly set on high “above all the nations … for praise, and for fame, and for honor … to YHWH [our] God” (26:18–19), we need to see that God’s law is written in our minds and on our hearts for everyone to see (cf. Jer 31:31–33).

2. Positioning of the Tribes at Shechem and a Litany of Curses (27:11–26) Bibliography

Alt, A. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. 1966. 114–15, 147–48, 155–57, 161– 68. Bellefontaine, E. “The Curses of Deuteronomy 27: Their Relationship to the Prohibitives.” In SBTS 3:256–68.———. “A Study of Ancient Israelite Laws and Their Function as Covenant Stipulations.” Diss., Notre Dame, 1973. Brichto, H. C. Problem of “Curse.” 1963. 77–96, 132– 35. Broyde, M. J., and Weiner, S. S. “A Mathematical Analysis of the Division of the Tribes and the Role of the Levites on Grizim and Aval in Deuteronomy 27.” Tradition 27 (1992) 48– 57. Buis, P. “Deutéronome XXVII 15–26: Malédictions ou exigences de l’alliance?” VT 17 (1967) 478–79. Cardascia, G. “Egalité et inégalité des sexes en matière d’atteinte aux moeurs dans le Proche-Orient ancien.” WO 11 (1980) 7–16., esp. 12 Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” Orita 3 (1969) 27–52,.esp. 38–39———. “Some Forms of Old Testament Legislation.” In Oxford Society of Historical Theology: Abstracts of Proceedings for the Academic Year 1944–45. 36–46,.esp. 39 Fensham, F. C. “Aspects of Family Law in the Covenant Code in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” DiIs 1 (1969) 5–19, esp. 15– 16. Garbini, G. “Il Sangue dell’innocente.” In Atti della Settimana Sangue e Antropologia nela letteratura cristiana. Ed. F. Vattioni. 3 vols. Rome: Pia Unione Preziosissimo Sangue, 1983. 1:513–24. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SLR 19 (1967) 947–77,.esp. 959–60 Hoffner, H. A. “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East.” In FS C. H. Gordon.1973. 81–90. ———. “Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study.” TynBul 20 (1969) 27–55,. esp. 41–42 Klopfenstein, M. A. Scham und Schande nach dem Alten Testament. ATANT 62. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. 190–93. Lewy, I. “The Puzzle of Deuteronomy 27: Blessings Announced, but Curses Noted.” VT 12 (1962) 207–11. Mitchell, T. C. “The Meaning of the Noun H\TN in the Old Testament.” VT 19 (1969) 93–112,. esp. 112 Nielsen, E. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955. 39–85, 315–57. Phillips, A. “Uncovering the Father’s Skirt.” VT 30 (1980) 38–43. Schottroff, W. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch. WMANT 30. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Schulz, H. Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament. BZAW 114. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969. 61–71 Seebass, H. “Garizim und Ebal als Symbol von Segen und Fluch.” Bib 63 (1982) 22–31. Smith, W. R. Kinship and Marriage. 1903. 191–98. Sole, F. M. “La Proprietà fondiaria in Israele.” PalCl 43 (1964) 673– 76. Steinmetzer, F. X. Die babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als Urkundenform.SGKA XI 4/5. Paderborn, Schoningh, 1922. ———. “Über den Grundbesitz in Babylonien zur Kassitenzeit nach den sogenannten Grenzsteinen dargestellt.” Der Alte Orient 19 (1919). Tigay, J. You Shall Have No Other Gods. HSS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. 91–96. Wallis, G. “Der Vollbürgereid in Dt 27, 15–26.”HUCA 45 (1974) 47–63. Weinfeld, M. DDS. 147. — ——. Deuteronomy 1–11. 1991. 253–54. ———. “The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source.”VT 23 (1973) 63–75,. esp. 63–65 ———. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” In Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. 95–129,. esp. 105–6 ——— . “Zion as a Religious Capital.” In The Poet and the Historian. Ed. R. E. Friedman. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 81–85. Wilson, C. W. “Ebal and Gerizim, 1866.” PEQ (April 1873) 66– 70.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Positioning on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal and the First Curse [(6:3):(4:4):(4:4)] [3:6]

11 And Moses commanded / the people / IN THAT DAY / saying // 21 4 12 these / shall stand / 7 2_ To bless the people \ on Mount Gerizim / 17 1 when you cross / the Jordan // 9 2_ Simeon / and Levi and Judah / and Issachar / 20 3 and Joseph and Benjamin // 12 1 13 and these / shall stand | for the curse / on Mount Ebal // 21 4_ Reuben / Gad and Asher / 12 2 [and] Zebulun / Danand Naphtali // 14 2_ 14 And the Levites shall respond / and they shall say / 15 2 _2 13 ס // to every man in Israel / with a loud voice 15 Cursed is the man / who makes a graven or molten image / 21 2 an abomination to YHWH / 7 1_ A work / by hands of a craftsman / 11 2 and he sets it up in secret // 7 1 And all the people shall respond / 10 1 _2 10 ס // and they shall say / Amen

Four Curses on Social Sins from Mount Ebal { [5] [5] [5] [6]}

16 Cursed is the one / who dishonors his father / or his mother // 15 3 _2 15 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 17 Cursed is the one / who moves back / his neighbor’s landmark // 16 3 _2 15 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 18 Cursed is the one / who misleads a blind man / in the way // 13 3 _2 13 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 19 Cursed is the one / who perverts / justice for alien orphan / 14 3 and widow // 6 1 _2 13 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen

Four Curses on Sexual Sins from Mount Ebal { [5] [5] [5] [5]} 20 Cursed is the one / who lies \ with his father’s wife / 16 2 because he has removed \ his father’s garment // 11 1 _2 15 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 21 Cursed is the one / who lies / with any beast // 15 3 _2 15 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 22 Cursed is the one / who lies \ with his sister / 14 2 the daughter of his father \ or daughter of his mother // 11 1 _2 13 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 23 Cursed is the one / who lies / with his mother-in-law // 14 3 _2 13 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen

Two Curses on Social Sins from Mount Ebal { [5] [5]}

24 Cursed is the one / who strikes down his neighbor / in secret // 17 3 _2 15 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen 25 Cursed is the one / who takes a bribe / 12 2 so as to strike down a life \ (taking) innocent blood // 12 1 _2 13 ס // and all the people shall say / Amen

Final Curse on Those Who Do Not Keep the Words of This Torah [6]

26 Cursed is he / who does not uphold / 12 2 the words of this Torah / 13 1 To do them // 8 1 _2 15 פ // and all the people shall say / Amen

Notes

12.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ parvum as conj. ,גרזּים Gerizim,” with MT, against B and SP, which read“ ,גרזים b-b. Reading.12 in order to achieve closer balance in terms of mora count. The term is counted five morae. 12.c. Reading the waw-conj. with MT on the basis of prosodic analysis in all four instances against some Heb. MSS, LXX, and Vg. 13.a. Reading disj. accent here for metheg plus mêrĕkā. 13.b. Deleting waw-conj. with some Heb. MSS and SP. 13.c. Reading with MT; Syr. adds waw-conj.

. מְ קַ לֵּ ל he dishonors,” with MT; two Heb. MSS read“ , מַ קְ לֶ ה a. Reading.16 16.b. Here and in the repetition of this refrain in vv 17–26, I read sg. with MT; SP reads pl.

he perverts,” with no“ , מַ טֶּ ה rather than מַ טֵּ ה a. Some Heb. MSS and B read.19 change in meaning. 19.b. LXX and Syr. add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 20.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by mûnāḥ as conj.

20.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 22.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ parvum as conj. sisters of his father and his“ ,אחות אביו ואמו b-b. Some LXX witnesses read.22 mother.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

22.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 25.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. innocent“ ,דם נקי with the same meaning as MT ,דם נקי(א) b-b. B reads.25 blood.” Cf. 19:10 and Jonah 1:14.

.all,” with a few Heb. MSS, SP, and most LXX witnesses“ ,כל a. Adding.26 Restoring the word completes the pattern in the use of the divine-name numbers throughout 27:11–26 (see discussion under Form/Structure/Setting).

”.to do them“ ,לעשׂות אותם to do them,” for MT“ , לַ ﬠֲ שׂ וֹ תָ ם b-b. SP reads.26 Prosodic analysis supports MT.

Form/Structure/Setting There are significant problems in the interpretation of this section. There are two v 12) is to be read as equivalent) על ways to interpret 27:11–13. Either the preposition .in front of” (Josh 8:33), or we are dealing with more than one ceremony“ ,אל־מול to A further complexity is introduced by the fact that v 12 refers to six tribes standing there “to bless the people on Mount Gerizim,” but there are no blessings given in the text until we get to Deut 28. The best way to explain this situation is in terms of the function of 27:11–26 within the larger literary structure of Deut 27–28 as a whole, which may be outlined as follows: A Shechem ceremony—Torah inscribed on stones and sacrifices on Ebal 27:1–10 B Positioning of the tribes at Shechem—litany of twelve curses 27:11–26 X Six ritual blessings in Moab under Moses 28:1–14 B Six ritual curses that echo the old Shechem ceremony 28:15–19 A′ Moab ceremony—commentary and expansion of covenant curses 28:20–69 From this structure it is clear that we are dealing with more than one covenant ceremony in the text of Deut 27–28—that of covenant renewal under Moses on the plains of Moab and the anticipated covenant renewal under Joshua in the promised land. Joshua’s renewal of the covenant of Shechem became an ongoing part of worship experience in the life of ancient Israel. The outer frame in the above structure moves from a description of the anticipated setting for covenant renewal in the promised land at Shechem under Joshua (27:1–10), to a detailed commentary and expansion of the covenant curses as enunciated by Moses on the plains of Moab (28:20–69). The inner frame moves from a description of the positioning of the twelve tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal for the blessing and curse, which includes a litany of twelve curses to be recited in that context (27:11–19), to six ritual curses of the original ceremony of covenant renewal in Moab (28:15–19). These six ritual curses are preceded by the account of the corresponding six ritual blessings in the center of the structure (28:1–14). The continued observance of Passover by the Samaritan community on Mount Gerizim (see Explanation of 16:1–8) reveals that there is a place for both events depicted in Deut 27 and Josh 8:30–35 within the context of festival observance and covenant renewal at Shechem. In particular, the last day of the annual Samaritan observance begins early in the morning when all the males make their way to the top of Mount Gerizim to recite long doxologies, prayers, and songs to God, interspersed with biblical readings. The antiphonal recitation of blessings and curses on the part of tribal representatives on the two mountains of Deut 27 makes perfect sense along with the corporate experience of the assembly of the entire community facing the two mountains (Josh 8:33). In terms of prosodic structure, 27:11–26 is in two major sections, the first of which is divided further in two parts (vv 11–14 and 15). 27:11–15 Positioning of the twelve tribes 27:16–26 Twelve curses recited from Mount Ebal by the Levites The boundaries of the first prosodic unit (27:11–15) are marked by sĕtûmāʾ layout markers and the Numeruswechsel (change from second sg. to second pl.) in v 12. It should be noted, however, that there is another sĕtûmāʾ layout marker at the end of v 14 and after each of following verses that delineate the individual curses. Consequently the structure is determined primarily on the basis of content, which may be outlined as follows: Proclamation of Blessings and Curses by the Twelve Tribes 27:11–14 A These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people vv 11–12a B Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin v 12b X These shall stand for the curse on Mount Ebal v 13a B Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali v 13b A′ And the Levites shall respond with a loud voice v 14 Twelve Curses Pronounced by the Levites on Clandestine Sins 27:15–26 A First curse: on relations with God (making images of God) v 15 B Four curses on social sins vv 16–19 X Four curses on sexual sins (incest and bestiality) vv 20–23 B Two curses on social sins vv 24–25 A′ Summary curse: on relations with God (keeping the Torah) v 26 The boundary after 27:14 is marked by the sĕtûmāʾ layout marker and by singling out of the Levites as the ones to pronounce the twelve curses that follow in 27:15–26. The list of sins delineated here is similar to other such representative lists that appear elsewhere in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms (cf. Ezek 18; Ps 15). Where relations with God are included in these lists, that matter is always placed first. A number of scholars have argued in favor of an original series of ten curses. The conclusion reached by Mayes is apropos: “in its allusions to various laws, it may function in a representative way … to bring to mind the whole field of law and morality which must characterize the life of the people of Yahweh” ([1981] 345–46). It should be noted that the curses of 27:15–26 are not the ceremony described in vv 11–14, as Lewy (VT 12 [1962] 207–11) and others have noted. They appear here as part of larger concentric structural patterns. In particular, the twelve curses recited from Mount Ebal by the Levites are set over against the mutual commitments between God and the people of Israel in 26:16–19. They spell out what will happen if, by choosing not to observe the Torah, Israel fails to be the “holy people” YHWH desires. The conclusion Craigie reached about the omission of the blessings is indeed credible: when the text of the blessings in 28:3–6 is compared to the curses of 28:16–19, “it is not unlikely … that the twelve blessings, which are not mentioned here, would have been the exact reverse of the twelve curses that are stated” ([1976] 331). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers ,all,” in the first half of v 26“ ,כל in 27:11–26, modified by the addition of the word may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

27:11 7 + 0 = 7 27:12–15 39 + 17 = 56

27:16–19 18 + 16 = 34 (= 2 × 17)

27:20–23 27 + 16 = 43 (= 17 + 26)

27:24–26 22 + 12 = 34 (= 2 × 17)

27:12 11 + 6 = 17 27:12–13 17 + 12 = 29

27:12–14 26 + 12 = 38

27:15–16 17 + 9 = 26

27:15–17 21 + 13 = 34 (= 2 × 17)

Following the introductory seven words of v 11, each subunit makes use of either or both of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26. There are 17 words in v 12, which concerns the blessing proclaimed from Mount Gerizim. In the whole of vv 12–14, on the positioning of the twelve tribes on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal for the blessings and curses, there are 26 words before ʾatnāḥ. In vv 12–15, which includes the first curse (v 15), there are 17 words afterʾatnāḥ. In vv 15–16, which present the first two curses, there are 17 words before ʾatnāḥ and a total of 26 words. In vv 15–17, which include the first three curses, there are a total of 34 (= 2 × 17) words; and in vv 16–19 on the four social sins proclaimed from Mount Ebal, there are a total of 34 (= 2 × 17) words. In vv 20–23 on the four sexual sins proclaimed from Mount Ebal, there are a total of 43 (= 17 + 26) words. And in vv 24–26 on the final three curses spoken from Mount Ebal, there are a total of 34 (= 2 × 17) words. The divine-name numbers appear to be the primary numerical pattern on which the text itself is built, expanding one subunit on another to build a structure in which God’s name is carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text.

Comment 12–13 On the association of “Mount Gerizim” and “Mount Ebal” with the covenant blessings and curses, see the Comment on 11:29 and Plate 4. Tigay notes that the Levites’ “pronouncements would be most audible if [the people] stood on the slopes of the mountains,” since the text actually states “ ‘on,’ not ‘atop,’ the mountains” ([1996] 252). 15 The first curse in the Dodecalog (vv 15–26) concerns the breaking of the first two of the Ten Commandments, by making a “graven or molten image.” The term was defined by Brichto as “destined for misfortune” (Problem of (ארור) ”cursed“ graven image,” may“ ,פסל to be blessed.” A“ ,ברוך Curse,” 77). It is the opposite of“ be rendered as “idol,” since this noun is used only for images of gods in wood, metal, or stone. “Amen” is rendered in the LXX as “Let it be so.” Tigay calls attention to the fact that its meaning is spelled out by Jeremiah, who expressed assent to what Hananiah had just said by responding “Amen! May YHWH do so!” (Jer 28:6). He also calls attention to Num 5:22, where the suspected adulteress is commanded to drink a certain potion that will harm her if she is guilty, and she must respond “Amen, amen!” ([1996] 255). The Talmud explains that, “Answering ‘amen’ after an oath is equivalent to pronouncing the oath with one’s own mouth” (b. Shebu. 29b, cited by Tigay). 16 The term “dishonors” means to insult, or to treat with disrespect, which is the reverse of the verb to “honor” in the fifth commandment (see also21:18–21). 17 To “remove a neighbor’s landmark” was considered a sin against God because property was owned by God, who assigned it to the original tribes in the days of Joshua (see also 19:14). If the reference is to something like the Mesopotamian kudurru- stone, as suggested by Craigie, the crime in question would be the “total appropriation of another person’s property” ([1976] 332; see also A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964] 123, 149). 18 The curse of “one who misleads a blind man” is interpreted broadly in Jewish tradition (cf. Lev 19:14). As Tigay put it, “Halakhic exegesis took the prohibition to include misleading uninformed people with incorrect information or bad advice, or abetting sinners and criminals, who are blinded by their desires” ([1996] 255; cf. Josephus Ant. 4.8.31 §276, cited by Tigay [1996] 395 n. 55). 19 The “alien, orphan, and widow” were vulnerable because they often lacked the power to defend themselves in legal proceedings (cf. 10:18). The subject of perverting justice to the vulnerable in society is taken up in the laws of 24:6–25:16, and particularly in 24:17–22. 20–23 On the meaning of the phrase “he has removed his father’s garment,” see also the Comment on 23:1 (Eng. 22:30), the law prohibiting marriage to one’s father’s wife. The statement seems to be a euphemistic description of the invasion of the privacy of the sexual relationship between the father and (step)mother by the father’s son. Tigay says the absence of adultery here has to do with the very nature of the crimes listed. “A man would arouse suspicion if seen in the company or home of another man’s wife, but not if seen in the company of his stepmother, sister, mother-in-law, and cattle” ([1996] 256). The defining of “sister” as “daughter of his father or daughter of his mother” excludes marriage with a half sister, which was clearly permitted in the stories of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 20:12), and Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam 13:13). It is interesting to note that the list of sexual sins here does not include sexual relations between persons of the same sex, as is also the case in the list of twelve sexual prohibitions in Lev 18:6–18. The prohibition of homosexual acts comes rather far down the list of sexual evils in ancient Israel. In Lev 18:22 and 20:13 sexual union of males is prohibited; but nothing is said in the laws of the Torah in the matter of same-sex relations with females. Moreover, there is nothing in the laws of Deuteronomy on the subject of homosexuality at all. On the matter of transvestism, see Deut 22:5 and theComment there. strikes down,” is often translated “slays,” a different“ ,מכה Though the word 25–24 verb is normally used to convey the meaning “to kill,” as inExod 21:12. Nonetheless, the crime in question here remains that of slaying one’s “neighbor in secret.” The perpetrator of such a deed may escape trial and punishment on the part of legal authorities, but he or she cannot escape the curse of God. Biblical laws about “the one who takes a bribe” normally refer to judges, so Tigay concludes that the reference here is to corrupt application of the death penalty ([1996] 257; cf. Exod 23:7–8; Deut 16:22; Ezek 22:12). 26 The twelfth and final curse refers to all other commands in “this Torah.”

Explanation The concentric structure of the curses here suggests that the sins of incest and bestiality are of primary concern and that they are in some way connected with the sins regarding human relations with God in the first and last of the curses (27:14–15 and 26). That homosexual acts are not included in the list of four curses on sexual sins from Mount Ebal here or in the parallel list of twelve prohibitions of sexual relations in Lev 18:7–18 should not be construed as evidence condoning or condemning such relationships. Same-sex relations between males are condemned in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. In the latter instance the prohibition appears in conjunction with the prohibition of sexual union with animals by either sex (Lev 20:15–16), a prohibition listed here in Deut 27:21. The sins against God here focus on the issue of idolatry (making images of God) and the keeping of the Torah. Though these matters are of primary importance throughout Deuteronomy, it is not immediately clear what connection, if any, exists between them and the four curses on the sexual sins of incest and bestiality in 27:20–23. In his letter to the church at Corinth the apostle Paul saw a connection with glorifying God in our bodies. “The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.… Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:13–20). It makes no difference whether such sins are actually found out. Their effect is real and permanent—in our own bodies, in the life of the objects of our sexual actions, and in our relationship with God. Paul expounds the meaning of this curse in his letter to the Galatians (3:10–14), concluding that we cannot claim justification before God on the basis of “works of the law.” Since the all-embracing nature of this law turns our eyes to Christ, Paul then shifts his attention to the fact that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree’ ” (Gal 3:13; see Deut 21:23 and Comment there).

D. If You Keep Covenant (28:1–69 [Eng. 28:1– 29:1]) Bibliography

Blank, S. H. “The Curse, the Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath.” HUCA 23 (1950/51) 73– 95. Borger, R. “Zu den Assarhaddon-Verträgen aus Nimrud.” ZA 54 (1961) 191–92. Brichto, H. C. Problem of “Curse.” 1963. 186. Buis, P. “Comment au septième siècle envisageait-on l’avenir de l’alliance: Étude de Lv. 26, 3–45.” In Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament. Ed. C. Brekelmans. 1974. 131–40. Cho¬ewinski, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. AnBib 66. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976. Fensham, F. C. “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah.” ZAW 75 (1963) 155–75. ——— . “Maledictions and Benedictions in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament.” ZAW 74 (1962) 1–9. Frankena, R. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” OTS 14 (1965) 122–54. Gevirtz, S. “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law.” VT 11 (1961) 137–58. Hillers, D. R. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. BibOr 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Horst, F. “Der Eid im Alten Testament.” EvT 17 (1961) 292–314. Jeremias, J. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit. WMANT35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. 164–75. Lohfink, N. “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev. 26, 9.11–13.” In FS K. Elliger. 1973. 129–36. Mendenhall, G. E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954) 50–76.———. “The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later.” In Religion and Law. Ed. E. B. Firmage et al. 1990. 85–100. ———, and Herion, G. A.“Covenant.” ABD 1:1179–1202. Moran, W. L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963) 77–87. Mørstad, E.Wenn du der Stimme des Herrn, deines Gottes, gehorchen wirst: Die primären Einführungen zu Dt 28, 3–6 und 16– 19. Oslo: Forlaget Land og Kirke, 1960. Noth, M. “For All Who Rely on Works of the Law Are under a Curse.” In The Laws in the Pentateuch. 1966. 118–31. Pedersen, J. Der Eid bei den Semiten. Strassburg: Trubner, 1914. Plöger, J. G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen. 1966. 130–217. Schächter, E. A. “Bundesformular und prophetischer Urteilsspruch: Bemerkungen zu D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets.” Bib 48 (1967) 128–31. Scharbert, J. “ ‘Fluchen’ und ‘Segnen’ im Alten Testament.” Bib 39 (1958) 1–26. Schottroff, W. Der altisraelitisch Fluchspruch. WMANT 30. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. 225–27. Seitz, G. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. BWANT 93. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. 254–302. Seybold, K. Das Gebet der Kranken im Alten Testament. BWANT 99. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973. 17– 29, 39–55, 169. Sumner, W. A. “A Study of Deuteronomy 28, with Special Reference to the Parallels with Jeremiah.” Diss., Oxford, 1967/68. Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1964. 17. Urbach, W. J. “Blessings and Curses.” ABD 1:755–61. Wächter, L. Der Tod im Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967. 129–57. Weinfeld, M. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Bib 46 (1965) 417–27. Welch, A. C. Deuteronomy: The Framework of the Code. 1932. 75–96. Wolfers, D. “Is Job after All Jewish?” DD 14 (1985) 39–44.

Introduction The final verse (28:69) functions as a bridge connecting the “Covenant Blessings and Curses” under Moses and Joshua in Deut 28 with Deut 29, which makes clear that the terms of this ancient covenant apply to all future generations of the people of God as well. Because of the nature of the content of these curses, the custom emerged within Judaism of chanting them in a whisper during the Torah reading. A Jewish tomb inscription of the third century C.E. invokes “all the curses written in Deuteronomy” on the person who violates it (Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum [Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1952] 2:24, no. 760; Tigay [1996] 261, 396 n. 22). The boundaries of Deut 28 are marked by pĕtûḥāʾ layout markers in BHS, which indicates that in L the extra space left after 27:26 and 28:69 are similar: the second half of the previous line was left blank and the text is written flush right with no indentation. For the sĕtûmāʾ layout markers after vv14 and 68, extra space was left in the middle of the line. It appears that the two sĕtûmāʾ layout markers are calling attention to the fact that vv 1–14 and v69 are part of other structures that extend beyond Deut 28. The only further rhetorical markers for internal structure in this lengthy chapter are theNumeruswechsel in vv 62 (twice), 63 (twice), and 68. Nonetheless, the chapter is one of the most tightly structured of the entire book, consisting of five parts, four of which are divided further into five parts, and one of these (vv 58–68) divided still further into five parts, as the following outline indicates: A Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience 28:1–19 a Six covenant blessings (in three pairs) vv 1–6 b Promises expanding on the blessings vv 7–10 x Threefold blessing: progeny, livestock, and produce v 11 b′ Promises expanding on the blessings vv 12–14 a′ Six covenant curses (in three pairs) vv 15–19 B Expansion of curses: pestilence, famine, and disease 28:20–32 a General theme: curse, confusion, and cumbrance v 20 b Seven afflictions from pestilence vv 21–22 x Destruction by famine and the sword vv 23–26 b′ Seven more afflictions (“boils of Egypt”) vv 27–29 a′ Violent loss of family, home, and property vv 30–31 X Expansion of curses: oppression, exile, and slavery 28:32–44 a Oppression that produces insanity vv 32–34 b Afflictions from disease (“boils” [like Job]) v 35 x Exile from the land of Israel vv 36–37 b′ Afflictions of pestilence and war vv 38–42 a′ Impoverishment and debt vv 43–44 B′ Expansion of curses: utter privation in siege warfare 28:45–68 a These curses will pursue you until you are destroyed v 45 b Israel’s utter privation “in want of all things” vv 46–48 x Military siege and the undoing of God’s blessings vv 49–52 b′ A gruesome climax: cannibalism vv 53–57 a′ The complete reversal of Israel’s history vv 58–68 a You will experience the diseases of Egypt 28:58–61 b Your numbers will be decimated v 62 x YHWH takes delight in destroying you v 63 b′ YHWH will scatter you among the nations v 64–65 a′ YHWH will make you “return to Egypt” vv 66–68 A′ Summation: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 Detailed discussion of each of these passages is presented below, including the prosodic analysis on which this outline is based. Most of the covenant or international treaty texts recovered from the ancient Near East include a section on blessings and curses, which describe in detail the consequences of obedience and disobedience on the part of the vassal. Because the witnesses mentioned in these texts were deities or deified elements of the natural world, the blessings and curses were appropriately those experiences that are beyond normal human ability to predict, much less to control. The most important of these concern health, productivity of fields and flocks and wives, and the ravages of war. It should be noted that treaty texts from the Late Bronze Age (before 1200 B.C.E.) included not only punitive threats (curses) to be carried out by the divine witnesses to the covenant agreement but also positive rewards (blessings) of similar origin. Later in the Iron Age (after 1200 B.C.E.), particularly in the period of the Assyrian Empire (ca. 750–620 B.C.E.), only the curses were included. In Deut 28 both blessings and curses appear in the first section (28:1–19), but the great bulk of the material (28:20–68) is an expansion of the curses. Moreover, as Mendenhall and others have noted [ABD 1:1183], all of the various elements of ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties are present in Deuteronomy, which thus represents an early form of covenant tradition. At the same time, it is also true that the development of the treaty analogy in Deuteronomy appears to be a creative response to and polemic against the crisis of Assyrian domination in Israel, as Lohfink has argued (IDBSup, 229–32). The longest chapter in the book, Deut 28 is discussed in most commentaries as two literary units: the blessings (vv 1–14) and the curses (15–68). The prosodic analysis presented here, however, suggests that the chapter is made up of five subsections: vv 1– 19, 20–32, 33–44, 45–68, and 69, the first of which presents both blessings and curses in summary form, with the focus of attention on the blessings. This is contrary to parallels in other ancient Near Eastern international treaty texts, where the usual order presents curses before blessings. After the summary statement of six covenant curses in vv 15–19, which are almost identical in form to the six covenant blessings of vv 1–6, the curses are expanded in three cycles, and a fourth cycle contained within the third cycle in vv 58–61, as a “wheel within a wheel.”

1. Blessings for Obedience and Curses for Disobedience (28:1–19) Bibliography

–in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 105 (1986) 193 כי Aejmelaeus, A. “Function and Interpretation of 209,. esp. 208. Aull, J. S. “Obey My Voice: A Form-Critical Study of Selected Prose Speeches from the Book of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Duke Univ., 1971. Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography II.” Bib 45 (1964) 393–412.———. “A Note on tôb “Rain.” Bib 54 (1973) 404. Diringer, D., and Brock, S. P. “Words and Meanings in Early Hebrew Inscriptions.” In FS D. Winton Thomas.1968. 41–42. Evans, G. “ ‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ at the City Gate: A Discussion of Prof. Speiser’s Paper.” BASOR 150 (1958) 28–35. Galling, K. “Die Ausrufung des Namens als Rechtsakt in Israel.” TLZ 81 (1956) 65–70. Gammie, J. G. “The Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy.” CBQ 32 (1970) 1–12,. esp. 8. Gaster, T. H. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. .Gray, J. Legacy of Canaan. 2nd ed .5–304 .1981 . שׁבע Giesen, G. Die Wurzel .321 ,305 1965. 298. Izreʾel, S. “˒Et = ‘to, toward’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Shnaton 3 (1978/79) 205–12 (Heb.). Kraus, H. J.Worship in Israel. Tr. G. Buswell. Richmond: John Knox, 1966. 85– 87. Scharbert, J. “Die Geschichte der bārûk-Formel.” BZ 17 (1973) 1–28,. esp. 14–15Speiser, E. A. “ ‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ at the City Gate.” BASOR 144 (1956) 20–23. Tawil, H. “A Curse Concerning Crop-Consuming Insects in the Sefire Treaty and in Akkadian: A New Interpretation.” BASOR 225 (1977) 61. Troadec, H. “Faut-il désirer la richesse? (Deutéronome 28, 1–14).” BVC 37 (1961) 46–52. Weippert, H.“Speicher.” BRL. 308–9.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Six Covenant Blessings [4:(5:5):6] [4:(3:3):4)]

1 And it shall be / if you surely hearken / 13 2 to the voice / of YHWH your God / 12 2_ To be careful to do / all his commandments / 14 2 that / I command you / TODAY // 15 3_ Then YHWH your God / will make you / most high / 18 3 above / all the nations of the earth // 11 2_ 2 And all these blessings / will come upon you / 23 2 and they will overtake you // 7 1 when you hearken / to the voice / of YHWH your God // 16 3_ 3 Blessed are you / in the city // 11 2 and blessed are you / in the (open) field // 13 2_ 4 And blessed is the fruit of your womb / 10 1 and the fruit of your ground / 10 1 and the fruit of your beasts // 9 1_ The increase of your cattle \ and the young of your flock // 16 1 5 blessed is your basket / and your kneading trough // 13 2_ 6 Blessed are you / in your coming in // 12 2 and blessed are you / in your going out // 14 2_

Promises Expanding on the Blessings [(7:5):(4:4):(5:7)]

7 May YHWH grant in regard to your enemies / 13 1 the ones rising against you / 10 1 that they be struck down / before you // 11 2 In one road \ they shall go out against you / 15 1 and in seven roads / they shall flee before you // 22 2_ 8 May YHWH command that the blessing / be with you / 16 2 in your granaries / and in every / enterprise of your hand // 19 3_ And he will bless you / in the land / 12 2 that YHWH your God / is giving to you // 17 2 9 YHWH will establish you \ for himself / to be a holy people / 17 2 just as / he swore to // 12 2_ When you keep / the commandments / of YHWH your God / 18 3 and you walk / in his ways // 10 2_ 10 Then all the peoples of the earth / shall see / 14 2 that / the name of YHWH / is proclaimed over you // 16 3 and they shall be afraid / of you // 10 2_

The Threefold Blessing: Progeny, Livestock, and Produce [5:5]

11 And YHWH will make you abound / in prosperity / 13 2 in the fruit of your womb / 6 1 and in the fruit of your cattle / 9 1 and in the fruit of your ground // 10 1_ Upon / the ground / that YHWH swore / 15 3 to your fathers / to give to you // 12 2_

Promises Expanding the Blessings [(6:7):(7:6):(5:5)]

12 May YHWH open / to you / his good treasury / the heavens / 23 4 by giving rain on your land / in its time / 13 2_ And by blessing / all / the work of your hand // 18 3 and you shall lend / to many nations / 11 2 but as for you / you shall not borrow // 8 2_ 13 And YHWH will make you / to be the head / and not the tail / 20 3 and you shall be / only above / 11 2 and you shall not be / beneath // 9 2_ When you hearken / to the commands / of YHWH your God / 16 3 that I command you / TODAY / to keep and to do (them) // 23 3_ 14 And you shall not turn aside / from all the words / 15 2 that I / command / TODAY / 15 3_ To the right or to the left // 8 1 _4 22 ס // to walk / after / other gods / to serve them

Six Covenant Curses [(5:4):(3:3):(4:5)]

15 And it shall be / if you will not hearken / to the voice / 13 3 of YHWH your God / to keep and to do / 16 2 All his commands and his statutes / 13 1 that / I command you / TODAY // 16 3_ Then all these curses / shall come upon you / 23 2 and they shall overtake you // 7 1 16 Cursed are you \ in the city // 11 1 and cursed are you / in the field // 12 2_ 17 Cursed is your basket / and your kneading trough // 13 2 18 cursed is the fruit of your womb / 11 1 and the fruit of the ground // 11 1_ The increase of your cattle / 8 1 and the offspring of your flock // 10 1 19 Cursed are you \ in your coming in // 12 1 and cursed are you / in your going out // 13 2_

Notes 1.a. LXX has 2 pl. verbal form. 1.b. Some Heb. MSS, SP, LXX, and Tg. Ps.-J. add waw-conj.

nations of (the“ ,גויי nation,” for MT“ ,גוי c. A few Heb. MSS and SP read.1 earth).” 4.a-a. Omitted in LXX by homoeoteleuton. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

4.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. the ones rising.” The“ ,הקמים for MT הקאמים a. Some SP MSS read.7 .(appear to be interchangeable (see BDB, 866 קום and קאם roots

”.one“ ,אחד one,” for MT“ ,אחת b. Some SP MSS read.7

7.c. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. .he will command,” with no change in meaning“ ,יצו for MT יצוה a. SP reads.8

”.in your barns“ ,באסמיך in your barn,” for MT“ ,באסימך b. SP reads.8

,ידך your hands,” for MT“ ,ידיך .c. Many Heb. MSS, SP, Tg., and Vg. read pl.8 ”.your [pl.] hands“ ,ידיכם your hand.” Tg. Ps.-J. reads“ 9.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by mêrĕkā as conj.

to“ , לָ � b. Emending with LXX τοῖς πατράσιν σου, “to your fathers,” for MT.9 to swear,” in Deuteronomy with“ ,שׁבע you.” Mayes ([1981] 353) says the verb YHWH as subject is used elsewhere only with reference to the promise to the fathers (e.g., 1:8; 4:31; 6:10; 7:12; etc.; though cf.2:14).

for good [fem.],” which“ ,לטובה for good [masc.],” for MT“ ,לטוב a. SP reads.11 is possible in terms of the prosodic analysis. 11.b. SP omits pronominal suff.

”.your land“ ,ארצך before את a-a. SP inserts.12 12.b. One Heb. MS and some SP MSS omit waw-conj.

your hands” for“ ,ידיך .c. Cairo Geniza text, LXX, SP, Syr., and Vg. read pl.12 ”.your hand“ ,ידך MT 14.a-a. Omitted in LXX (Vg. reads ab eis, “from them”). Prosodic analysis supports MT.

that I) command you [sg.],” with)“ ,מצוה אתכם for MT מצוך b-b. Reading.14 one Heb. MS, SP, LXX, and Syr. (cf. 4:40; 6:2, 6, and numerous other occurrences, including 28:13). There is no change in meaning. The sĕtûmāʾ layout marker makes a significant boundary here, which may have attracted the use of the Numeruswechsel within the Masoretic tradition (cf. 28:62, 63, 68). The elimination of one word here brings the total word count for 28:11–14 to 78 (= 3 × 26) and the word count before ʾatnāḥ to 119 (= 7 × 17). It also brings the total word count before ʾatnāḥ in 28:1–69 to 595 (= 35 × 17). See discussion under Form/Structure/Setting. 15.a-a. Omitted in LXX minuscules. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15.b-b. Omitted in SP and LXX; some Heb. MSS add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15.c-c. Omitted in SP and LXX minuscules. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15.d-d. Omitted in some Heb. MSS, some LXX witnesses, and Syr. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

16.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. and fruit of your livestock.” Prosodic“ ,ופרי בהמתך a. One Heb. MS adds.18 analysis supports the shorter MT.

19.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

Form/Structure/Setting From a prosodic point of view, Deut 28:1–19 is in five parts (vv 1–6, 7–10, 11, 12– 14, and 15–19), which are carefully structured in terms of content in a concentric pattern: A Six blessings (in three pairs) 28:1–6 B Promises expanding on the blessings 28:7–10 X Threefold blessing (fruit of womb, cattle, ground) 28:11 B Promises expanding on the blessings 28:12–14 A′ Six curses (in three pairs) 28:15–19 The six blessings (28:1–6) and six curses (28:15–19) are arranged in three pairs using virtually identical language: 1. Blessed/cursed are you in the city 28:3a, 16a 2. Blessed/cursed are you in the field 28:3b, 16b 3. Blessed/cursed is the fruit of you womb, … ground, and … beasts 28:4, 18 4. Blessed/cursed is your basket and your kneading trough 28:5, 17 5. Blessed/cursed are you in your coming in 28:6a, 19a 6. Blessed/cursed are you in your going forth 28:6b, 19b The inner frame in the above concentric structure (28:7–10 and 12–14) consists of promises that elaborate on the concise blessings of vv 3–6. These sections highlight that God is the source of the blessings. Israel will be successful because God will honor what he promised in 26:18–19. The expansion of the covenant blessings in 28:7–10 may be outlined as follows: A YHWH will destroy your enemies before you 28:7 B YHWH will ordain blessings for you 28:8a X And he will bless you in the land that YHWH is giving you 28:8b B YHWH will establish you as his holy people 28:9 A′ All the peoples of the earth shall see and fear 28:10 The outer frame moves from YHWH’s promise to destroy Israel’s enemies (v 7) to the great fear that will spread among all the peoples of the earth who see what God is doing in behalf of Israel (v 10). In the inner frame YHWH declares that he will surely bring his blessings on Israel (v 8a), for he will establish them as his holy people (v 9). The center summarizes the matter: God will bless his people in the land that he is giving them (v 8b). The nature of that blessing is spelled out again in v 11, in a circular sentence: A YHWH will make you abound in prosperity והותרך יהוה לטובה B in the fruit of your womb בפרי בטנך X in the fruit of your cattle ובפרי בהמתך B in the fruit of your ground ובפרי אדמתך A′ upon the ground על האדמה that YHWH swore to your fathers to give you אשׁר נשׁבע יהוה לאבתיך לתת לך YHWH will cause his people to abound in prosperity in the promised land: in progeny, in livestock, and in agricultural produce. The second expansion of the blessings in terms of promises on the part of YHWH in 28:12–14 may be outlined in similar fashion: A YHWH will open for you his rich storehouse 28:12a B You will be a creditor to many nations, but debtor to none 28:12b X YHWH will make you the head, not the tail 28:13a B If you keep the commandments of YHWH that I command you today 28:13b A′ Do not turn to the worship of other gods 28:14 YHWH will open “his good treasury” to bless his people in all they do (v 12a), so do not turn “to the right or to the left, to walk after other gods to serve them” (v 14). If Israel keeps YHWH’s commandments (v 13b), they will be blessed above all nations (v 12b). Israel will lend to many nations, but borrow from none, for Israel will be exalted high above all peoples (v 13a). There are other ways to show the concentric structure of this passage in matters of detail. Tigay presents the relationship between the blessings in vv3–6 and the promises of vv 7–13 as follows ([1996] 490): A economic success 28:3a B fertility of soil 28:3b C fertility of humans and animals 28:4 D abundant food 28:5 E military success 28:6 E′ military success 28:7 D′ abundant food 28:8 C′ fertility of humans and animals 28:11 B′ fertility of soil 28:12a A′ economic success 28:12b–13 This particular analysis, which is based on repetition of ideas as well as on specific vocabulary items, was apparently first observed by Rofé (Tigay [1996] 542 n. 6). The evidence Labuschagne has gathered on the use of the divine-name numbers in 28:1–19, with a minor correction in v 14, may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

61 = 23 + ( ברכה =) 38 6–28:1 26:3–6 16 + 10 = 26

28:7–10 34 (= 2 × 17) + 25 = 59

28:7–8 17 + 15 = 32

28:9–10 17 + 10 = 27

(26 × 3 =) 78 = 31 + ( ארור =) 47 14–28:11 28:11 9 + 8 = 17

28:12 17 + 6 = 23

28:13 11 + 12 = 23

28:11–12 26 + 14 = 40

28:12–14 39 + 23 = 62

28:13–14 21 + 17 = 38 ( ברכה =) 28:15–19 31 + 16 = 47 ( ארור =)

28:1–14 119 (= 7 × 17) + 79 = 198 28:15–69 476 (= 4 × 7 × 17) + 318 = 794

The divine-name numbers are woven into the text of 28:1–14 in numerous ways, along glory.” A close look at the“ ,כבוד with both 23 and 32, the two numerical values of prosodic analysis presented here in relation to the data assembled by Labuschagne reveals that each of the prosodic units, and the subdivisions within these units as well, is structured in terms of these sacred numbers. Moreover, 28:1–14 as a whole has 119 (= 7 × 17) words before˒atnāḥ; and 28:15–69 as a whole has 476 (= 4 × 7 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ. It may also be significant that there are 38 words before ʾatnāḥ at the beginning (vv 1–6) and 38 words in vv 13–14 near the end of this unit; for this is the .blessing,” which is the subject of the passage“ ,ברכה numerical value of the word ,ארור There are 47 words in vv 15–19, which is the numerical value of the key word “cursed,” which appears six times in vv16–19. Symbolically the word “curse” appears a seventh time in the total number of 47 words in this passage.

Comment 1–2 The opening words, “if you surely hearken to the voice of YHWH your God,” form an inclusion with the concluding words of v 2 that separates vv 1–2 from the sixfold covenant blessing of vv 3–6. blessed,” which carries the connotation of being“ ,ברוך The word 4–3 “prosperous,” is repeated six times in vv 3–6 within the space of twenty-six words. The phrases “in the city” and “in the field” function as a merism to indicate totality of place (see J. Krasovec, Der Merismus im Biblisch-Hebraischen und Nordwestsemitischen, BibOr 33 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977]). Wherever you are, you will fruit,” is used in a broader sense in Hebrew than is normally“ ,פרי prosper. The word the case in English. See 28:53 below, where it is used in the expression “fruit of your own womb” in reference to human beings who are consumed in the horrors of starvation in times of military siege. The word appears three times here: of human beings, of agricultural produce, and of livestock. 5 The “kneading trough” was a wide shallow bowl employed for the preparation of dough with which to make bread. The blessing here refers to provision of daily food for the family. 6 The phrases “your coming in” and “your going out” are often used of military activity, which is clearly the case in the parallel passage in 28:7. See the discussion below in 31:2, where Moses’ inability “to go out and to come in” refers to his concern for the military leadership that he is turning over to Joshua (cf. Num 27:17, 21 and 1 Sam 18:13, 16; 29:6). 7 Security is assured by God against external threats from enemies. The phrase “seven roads” is used figuratively to express the idea of a large number, with the notion of completeness and fullness. Thus the translation in JPS Tanakh renders it “by many roads.” 8 On the meaning of the phrase “every enterprise of your hand,” see the Comment on 12:7. The phrase has a double meaning: “labor” itself, in the sense of “that to which one sets one’s hand,” and the products of one’s labor (cf. 26:11). 9 On the peculiar calling of the people of Israel “to be a holy people,” see also Exod 19:6, where the concept of Israel as “a holy nation” is linked with that of their being “a kingdom of priests.” Without the proposed textual emendation from LXX (adding “your fathers”), this would be the only use of the phrase “just as he swore” with reference to the Sinai covenant in Deuteronomy. 10–11 “They shall be afraid of you,” because “the name of YHWH is proclaimed over you.” Tigay has noted that the same concept on a human level appears in an appeal from a Canaanite vassal to Pharaoh in Amarna Tablet 287 ([1996] 260): “Behold, the king has set his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever; so he cannot abandon the lands of Jerusalem!” (ANET, 488). To proclaim the name over something was a legal act by which ownership was claimed and established in ancient Israel (Galling, TLZ 76 [1956] 65–70). On the threefold blessing of v 11, cf. v 4. 12 Craigie says, “The language of the verse is poetic and the imagery … is reminiscent of Ps. 104:3, 13, where God is described as watering the mountains from his lofty abode” ([1976] 337). Israel shall enjoy such an excess of prosperity that they “shall lend to many nations” and “shall not borrow.” On God’s provision of the rain, see 11:11–17. 13–14 The idea that God will make Israel “to be the head and not the tail” expresses in new language what was said in the previous verse. 15–19 On the phrase “all his commands and his statutes” see also v 45 (and cf. v 1). The curses begin with the conditional clause, “if you will not hearken to the voice of YHWH your God,” similar to some ancient treaties.

Explanation The threefold blessing of progeny, livestock, and produce of v 11 is expanded in vv 1–19 in parallel units that epitomize the essence of Deuteronomic theology, which may be summarized as follows: “obey the commands of YHWH and be blessed; disobey them and be cursed.” That this is an oversimplification of reality is demonstrated by the question posed by the prophet Habakkuk—“why do you look on the treacherous, and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?” (Hab 1:13 NRSV)—and by the book of Job. Job is actually singled out for suffering because he “was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1, 8), not because of any sin on his part. Some scholars have even suggested that the book of Job was written expressly to challenge the simplistic interpretation of Deuteronomic theology. One’s circumstances in life are not necessarily a result of one’s character. Hundreds of thousands of innocent children died in the Nazi holocaust, not because of sin on their part but because of an enormous evil force that surged across the length and breadth of Europe at that time. There are countless examples of disasters in all ages in which innocent people suffer and die. When Jesus’ disciples saw a man blind from birth, they asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned” (John 9:3 NRSV). As so many in various twelve-step recovery programs remind themselves again and again in their attempts to break free from the sense of guilt that tends to paralyze them, life is not fair. None of us is totally free from the effects of the evil one, however righteous we may be. As Maxwell noted ([1987] 303–4), a close reading of the Former Prophets shows that even the so-called Deuteronomistic History does not follow the simplistic reading of Deuteronomic theology proposed by a surface reading of Deut 28:1–19. In 2 Sam 11:25 we read that “the sword devours now one and now another,” so that the innocent are taken along with the guilty. The untimely deaths of the priests of Nob at the hands of King Saul (1 Sam 22:18–19) and the deaths of the seventy brothers of Abimelech (Judg 9:1–6) had nothing to do with retributive justice. On the other side, the long succession of kings in ancient Israel and Judah who ruled in luxury in spite of the fact that they refused to obey the words of YHWH’s Torah bears witness to the other side of the coin. Evil is not always punished in this life. The most striking example of innocent suffering in the literature of the Latter Prophets is that of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53. In spite of his obedience to God’s commandments, the servant suffers as did the prophet Jeremiah before him, and others in the long line of men and women who faithfully proclaimed the word of God in difficult circumstances. A close reading of Deuteronomy itself shows the folly in a simplistic interpretation of blessings and curses in terms of moral behavior alone. Israel’s wealth is presented as a gift of God, not something earned (8:18). God did not give the blessing of the land to Israel because they were more righteous than other nations (9:4–6). In the episode of the golden calf, the people were spared because Moses interceded for them, not because of righteousness on their part (9:25–29).

2. Expanded Description of Future Disaster (28:20–69 [Eng. 29:1]) a–b. First and Second Expansions of the Covenant Curses (28:20–44) Bibliography

Aharoni, I. “Animals Mentioned in the Bible.” Osiris 5 (1938) 478. Alexander, R. D. “Cricket.” In EncBrit. 1966. 6:753. Ben-Hayyim, Z. “Observations on the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon from the Samaritan Tradition.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 12–24,. esp. 16–17, 19. Branden, A. van den. “ ‘Reseph’ nella Bibbia.”BeO 13 (1971) 211–25,. esp. 213 Carmichael, C. M. “Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law: The Evidence of Deut 21:15–22:5.” JBL 101 (1982) 505–20,.esp. 514 n. 19 Cathcarth, K. J. “Micah 5, 4–5 and Semitic Incantations.” Bib 59 (1978) 38–48,. esp. 46–47 Cazelles, H. “Jérémie et le Deutéronome.” RSR 38 (1951/52) 5–36, esp. 12. Dion, P. E. “Un nouvel éclairage sur le context culturel des malheurs de Job.” VT 34 (1984) 213–15. ———. “Quelques aspects de l’interaction entre religion et politique dans le Deutéronome.” ScEs 30 (1978) 39–55, esp. 48–50. Driver, G. R. “The Plague of the Philistines.” JRAS(1950) 51.Fensham, F. C. “Ordeal by Battle in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 1969. 127–35, esp. 133– 34. Frankena, R. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” OTS 14 (1965) 122–54. Greenfield, J. C. “Some Phoenician Words.” Sem 38 (1990) 156. Gruber, M. Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. Studia Pohl 12.I-II. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. 1:386–400. Hillers, D. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. BibOr 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. 30–42. Hort, G. “The Plagues of Egypt.” ZAW 69 (1957) 101–2. Kim, Y. “The Vocabulary of Oppression in the Old Testament: ˓sq, ynh, lhs, and Congeners.” Ph.D. diss., Drew Univ., 1981. Linsenmaier, W. Insects of the World. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. 78–79. Lohfink, N. “ ‘I Am Yahweh, Your Physician’ (Exodus 15:26): God, Society and Human Health in a Postexilic Revision of the Pentateuch (Exod. 15:25b, 26).” In Theology of the Pentateuch. 1994. 35–95. Macalister, A. “Medicine.” Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. J. Hastings. 5 vols. New York: Scribner, 1902–4. 3:323–25, 329. MacIntosh, A. A. “A Consideration of Hebrew g˓r.” VT 19 (1969) 471– 79,. esp. 477, 479 Malusa, L. “L’interpretazione Geronimiana de ‘ḥrb’ in tre passi biblici.” BeO 19 (1977) 259–61. McCarthy, C. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Fribourg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. 197–204, 211–14. McCarthy, D. J. Treaty and Covenant. AnBib 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. 121–22, 124. Montet, P. Egypt and the Bible. Tr. L. R. Keylock. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. 98. Neustätter, O. “Where Did the Identification of the Philistine Plague as Bubonic Plague Originate?” Bulletin of the History M.Div. Thesis, Union ”.תיקוני סופרים“ .of Medicine 11 (1942) 36–47. Nielsen, B. E Theological Seminary, 1977. 1–32, 111–24. Oded, B. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979. Palmoni, Y. “Locust” IDB 3:144– 48. Plöger, J. G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen. 1967. 189–90. Pons, J.L’Oppression dans l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Letouzey, 1981. Preuss, J. Biblical and Talmudic Medicine. Tr. F. Rosner. New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1978. 154–57, 164–66, 339–43. Reif, S. C. “A Note on g˓r.” VT 21 (1971) 241–44. Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness That Was Babylon. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1962. 97.Sasson, J. M. The Military Establishments at Mari. Studia Pohl 3. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. 47– 49. Steiner, F. Taboo. 2nd ed. London: Cohen & West, 1967. 68–93, 149–53. Watson, W. G. E. “Reclustering Hebrew l˒lyd-.” Bib 58 (1977) 213–15. Weidner, E. F. “Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris V mit Mati’ilu von Bit-Agusi.” AfO 8 (1932–33) 17–26. Weil, H. M. “Gage et cautionnement dans la Bible.” AHDO 2 (1938) 171–241,. esp. 178 Weinfeld, M. DDS. 116– 29.———. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Bib 46 (1965) 417–27,. esp. 418 n. 3, 420–23 Westbrook, R. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. 15–35. Wilkinson, J. The Bible and Healing: A Medical and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wilson, J. V. K.“Medicine in the Land and Times of the Old Testament.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Ed T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. 337–65. Winckler, A. J. “Pests and Diseases.” EncBrit. 1966. 10:691. Wiseman, D. J. “ ‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy.” VT 32 (1982) 311– 26,. esp. 321 ———. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (= Iraq 20). London: British School of Archaeology, 1958. 88. Translation and Prosodic Analysis First Expansion: Pestilence, Famine, and Disease [(5:4):(4:4):(4:5)] General Theme: Curse, Confusion, and Cumbrance [(5:4)]

20 YHWH will send \ upon you / curse confusion / 22 2 and cumbrance / in all the undertakings of your hand / 14 2 that you will do // 5 1_ Until you are destroyed and you perish \ quickly / 16 1 because of / your evil doing / in forsaking me // 22 3_

Seven Afflictions from Pestilence [(4:4):(4:5)]

21 YHWH will make \ the pestilence cling / to you // 13 2 until / he has put an end to you / 10 2 From upon / the ground / 10 2 that you are coming there / to possess // 14 2_ 22 YHWH will strike you / with consumption and with fever / 17 2 and with inflammation / and with fiery heat / 12 2_ And with drought / 5 1 and with scorching / and with mildew // 17 2 and they will pursue you / until you perish // 13 2_

Destruction by Famine and the Sword [6:7:7:6]

23 And your heavens / 10 1 that are over your head \ will become brass // 12 1 and the land that is beneath you \ iron // 14 1 24 And YHWH will make / the rain of your land / 12 2 powder and dust // 9 1_ From the heavens / it will come down upon you / 15 2 until \ you are destroyed // 5 1 25 And YHWH / will cause you / to be defeated / 9 3 before your enemies / 9 1_ By one road / you will go forth against him / 14 2 indeed by seven roads / 11 1 you will flee before him // 9 1 And you will become an object of trembling / 11 1 to all / the kingdoms of the land // 12 2_ 26 And your corpses will be / food / 17 2 for every bird of the heavens / 9 1 And for the beasts of the land // 11 1 and there will be none / to frighten them off // 7 2_

Seven More Afflictions (“Boils of Egypt”) [(6:4):(4:6)]

27 And YHWH will strike you / 7 1 with boils of Egypt \ and with piles / 13 1 and with scurvy / and with itch // 13 2 of which you are not able / to be healed // 13 2_ 28 And YHWH will strike you / 7 1 with madness \ and with blindness // 14 1 and with confusion / of heart // 10 2_ 29 And you will / grope about at noonday / 15 2 just as the blind man gropes about / in the dark / 19 2_ And you will not prosper / in your ways // 14 2 and you will be / only maltreated and robbed / all the 22 3 days / and there will not be a savior // 8 1_

Violent Loss of Family, Home, and Property [7:(4:7)]

30 A woman you will betroth / 8 1 but another man / will rape her / 12 2 A home you will build / 4 1 but you will not dwell in it // 9 1 A vineyard you will plant / 4 1 but you will not put it to use // 9 1_ 31 Your ox / will be slaughtered before your eyes / 15 2 and you will not eat / any of it / 10 2_ Your ass / will be stolen from before you / 16 2 and it will not be returned / to you // 9 2_ Your sheep \ will be given to your enemies / 16 1 and there will not be for you / a savior // 10 2_

Second Expansion: Oppression, Exile, and Slavery Oppression That Produces Insanity [(7:4):7]

32 Your sons and your daughters / will be given to another people / 23 2 and your eyes will look on / 10 1 And they will be spent with tears for them / all the day // 13 2 and there will be no power (to help) / in your hand // 11 2_ 33 The fruit of your ground / and of all your toil / 15 2 a people will devour / that you have not known // 19 2_ And you will be / 6 1 only / maltreated and crushed / all the days // 16 3_ 34 And you will be \ driven mad // 10 1 by the sight of your eyes / that you will see // 13 2_

Afflictions of Disease (“Boils [like Job]”) [4:4]

35 YHWH will strike you / with evil boils / 11 2 on the knees / and on the legs / 12 2 Of which you will not be able / to be healed // 14 2 from the sole of your foot / to the crown of your head // 11 2_

Exile from the Land of Israel [5:5:5]

36 And YHWH will bring / you / and your king / 18 3 that you will set up over you / to a nation / 15 2_ That you have not known \ you and your fathers // 17 1 and you will serve there / other gods / of wood and stone // 24 3 37 and you will become a horror / 10 1_ A proverb \ and a byword // 11 1 among all / the peoples / 8 2 to which YHWH will lead you / there // 13 2_

Afflictions of Pestilence and War [(4:5):(3:3):(5:4)]

38 Much seed \ you will carry to the field // 11 1 and little will you gather in / 8 1 for the locust swarm / will consume it // 11 2_ 39 Vineyards you will plant \ and you will till them // 14 1 but wine you will not drink / 8 1 And you will not gather in fruit / 7 1 for the worm / will devour it // 14 2_ 40 Olive trees / you will have / throughout all your territory // 16 3 but oil \ you will not have to anoint yourself / 9 1 for your olives / will drop off // 8 2_ 41 Sons and daughters / you will bear // 14 2 but they will not be yours / 8 1 for they will go / into captivity // 11 2_ 42 All your trees / and the fruit of your ground // 15 2 the buzzing cricket / will possess // 9 2_

Impoverishment and Debt [6:6]

43 The alien / who is in your midst / will rise above you / 17 3 higher and higher // but you will go down / 16 2 lower and lower // 7 1_ 44 He will lend to you / and you / will not lend to him // 16 3 he will be the head / and you / will be the tail // 18 3_

Notes 20.a. Reading lĕgarmēh as conj.

”.the calamity“ ,המארה the bitterness,” for MT“ ,המרה b. SP reads.20 20.c. A number of Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza texts, SP, LXX, αʹ, and Vg. add waw- conj. Prosodic analysis supports the emendation.

”.your hand“ ,ידך your hands,” for MT“ ,ידיך d. Some Heb. MSS and SP read.20 20.e-e. LXX omits this phrase. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

they destroy you and until“ ,השׁמיד(ו)ך ועד (ה)אב(י)ד(ו)ך f-f. SP reads.20 you are destroyed and until“ ,השׁמדך ועד־אבדך they cause you to perish,” for MT you perish.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

20.g. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

.as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ בך a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ on.21

”he will strike you“ ,(יכך cf. SP) יַ כֶּ כָּ ה as equivalent to יַ כְּ כָ ה a-a. Reading MT.22 (see also 28:27, 28, 35).

dryness” or “heat,” with Vg., which reads et“ , ֹה רֶ ב b. Omitted in LXX. Reading.22 ”.sword“ , חֶ רֶ ב aestu, “and heat.” MT reads

they will pursue you until they“ ,ירדפוך עד אב(י)ד(ו)ך c-c. SP and Syr. read.22 which is possible from a prosodic ,ורדפוך עד אבדך cause you to perish,” for MT perspective.

your“ ,שׁמיך the heavens,” for MT“ ,השׁמים a. Syr., Tg., and Vg. read.23 heavens.” MT is retained as lectio difficilior. 23.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 23.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. 24.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. .Prosodic analysis supports MT .(מהר =) ”b. LXX adds ἐν τάχει, “quickly.24 25.a. Reading the unusual sequence of accents mêrĕkā with pāsēq as disj.

.(one” (see 28:7“ ,אחד one,” for MT“ ,אחת b. Some SP MSS read.25

,an object of trembling,” by transposition“ ,לזועה c-c. One Heb. MS and SP read.25 .an object of trembling.” See Isa 28:19“ ,לזעוה for MT

לכל־ for birds,” for MT“ ,לעוף a-a. Some Heb. MSS, SP, LXX, and Syr. read.26 ”.for every bird“ ,עוף

27.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. piles” or “hemorrhoids,” with K, which was apparently“ ,ובעפלים b. Reading.27 ”,swellings,” or “tumors“ ,ובטחרים considered too vulgar for public reading. The Q appears in some Heb. MSS, DSS, Syr., and Tg.

,ובחרס and with destruction,” for MT“ ,ובהרס c. Some SP witnesses read.27 “and with itch.”

28.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 28.b. Some LXX witnesses omit waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

,דרכיך .your way,” for MT pl“ ,דרכך .a. Some Heb. MSS, SP, and Syr. read sg.29 “your ways.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

”.only” or “surely“ ,אך only,” for MT“ ,רק b. SP reads.29

.cf) (לך =) ”c. Some of the more important LXX witnesses add σοι, “for you.29 v 31 below). Adding a word here disturbs the numerical composition, which totals 51 (= 3 × 17) words in vv 29–31. It appears that the phrase “and there will not be a savior” is to be taken as a coda from a musical point of view.

he shall rape her,” a verb never used of legitimate“ ,ישׁגלנה a. Reading with K.30 sexual relations. Since this word was considered too vulgar for public reading, Q and lie with her,” instead“ ,ישׁכב עמה other textual traditions used the words (cf. Note 27.b).

31.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 32.a-a. Omitted in some Heb. MSS and LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

your hands,” with a number of Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza“ ,ידיך .b. Reading pl.32 [.your [pl“ ,ידיכםyour hand”; Tg. Ps.-J. reads“ ,ידך fragments, and Syr. MT reads hands.” 33.a. Some SP witnesses add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

34.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. he will bring,” with no change in“ ,יולך for MT יוליך a. Some SP witnesses read.36 meaning. 36.b. Tg. Ps.-J. reads 2 pl.

36.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 36.d. Lucianic tradition of LXX, OL, and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl.

become a horror,” with no change in“ ,לשׁמה for MT לשׁם a. SP reads.37 meaning. 37.b. SP and LXX add waw-conj.

37.c. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 38.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 39.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 40.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ”,they will drop off“ ,ישׁ(ע)לו b-b. Some SP witnesses, Syr., Tg., and Vg. read.40 ”.it will drop off“ ,ישׁל for MT

it will be“ ,יירשׁ it shall possess,” with SP for MT“ ,יורישׁ a-a. Reading.42 dispossessed (by the locust).”

Form/Structure/Setting Since about 1960, scholars have looked to international treaty texts from the ancient Near East as a model to explain the form of Deuteronomy. At first, interest focused on parallels with Hittite vassal treaty texts of the Late Bronze Age (pre-1200 B.C.E.); but other parallels were noted with later Assyrian treaty texts from the Iron Age (post- 1200 B.C.E.). In keeping with the structure of what have come to be called “Iron Age Loyalty Oaths,” Deut 28:20–68 is an expanded definition of the acts of commission and omission that subject a vassal to the covenant curses. The Iron Age treaties give the impression that a promise to obey has simply been imposed by superior military force and is reinforced by means of the elaboration of curses. Weinfeld has appropriately called these treaties “loyalty oaths” (JAOS 90 [1970] 184–203; idem, UF 8 [1976] 392– 93). Like the Assyrian loyalty oaths, Deut 28:20–44 is an expanded description of disasters, including natural calamities, diseases, and the ravages of war, that may be outlined as follows: A Agricultural disaster (drought and hardened soil) 28:20–24 B Human afflictions (defeat → boils → madness → oppression) 28:25–29 X Undoing of the blessings (in 28:4, 8, 11) 28:30–31 B Human afflictions (oppression → madness → boils → defeat) 28:32–37 A′ Agricultural disaster (crop-destroying pests) 28:38–44 In this reading the outer frame consists of parallel groups of curses that focus on agricultural disaster in terms of drought (vv 20–24) and pestilence (vv38–44). The inner frame focuses on human afflictions (vv 25–29 and 32–37). In the center (vv 30–31) we find the reversal of the covenant blessings of prosperity in progeny, livestock, and agricultural produce. The elaboration here is far more expansive than that which accompanies the blessings in28:7–14. Though this section is complex from a prosodic point of view, with ten rhythmic units, it contains an elaborate concentric structural design embracing the whole, which may be outlined as follows: A Triad of afflictions: curse, confusion, and cumbrance 28:20–22 B Agricultural disaster (drought and hardened soil) 28:23–24 C War: defeat leading to Israel becoming an object lesson 28:25–26 D Boils of Egypt (sent from YHWH) 28:27 E Madness and blindness 28:28–29a F Oppressed and robbed all the days 28:29b X Undoing of the blessings (in 28:4, 8, 11) 28:30–31 F′ Oppressed and crushed all the days 28:32–33 E′ Madness from what one sees 28:34 D′ Boils (sent from YHWH) 28:35 C′ War: exile leading to Israel becoming an object lesson 28:36–37 B Agricultural disaster (crop-destroying pests) 28:38–42 A′ Economic collapse—impoverishment and debt 28:43–44 The center of this structure (vv 30–31) contains a list of calamities that essentially undo the blessings of vv 4, 8, and 11. Everything the people of Israel have will be taken by those who conquer them: their fiancées will be raped, their homes and vineyards taken, their oxen slaughtered, their asses and sheep stolen, their children enslaved, and their produce consumed. Since there are no markers in MT to indicate either the boundaries of vv 20–44 or the subunits within it, the structure must be determined on the basis of content, prosodic analysis, and the use of divine-name numbers. The list of curses that emerges from this study is arranged in ten prosodic units, perhaps to reflect the “ten plagues” of Exod 7– 11. These units may be outlined in two five-part structural units (vv 20–32 and 33–44): A General theme: curse, confusion, and cumbrance 28:20 B Seven afflictions from pestilence 28:21–22 X Destruction by famine and war 28:23–26 B Seven more afflictions (including “boils of Egypt”) 28:27–29 A′ Undoing of the blessings 28:30–31 A Oppression that produces insanity 28:32–34 B YHWH will strike you with boils (like Job) 28:35 X Exile from the land 28:36–37 B′ Undoing of the blessings 28:38–42 A′ Impoverishment and debt 28:43–44 These individual prosodic units are carefully arranged in parallel structures. In this reading the focus of attention is on destruction by famine and war and the exile of the people of Israel from their land. Three categories of punishment are presented here: disease (vv 21–22), drought with subsequent famine (vv 23–24), and war (vv 25–26). Compare the familiar “pestilence, sword, and famine” in other texts (Jer 21:7; 32:24; 38:2; 43:11; Ezek 5:12; 7:15). In the outer frame of the first five-part structure, the opening verse (v 20) is set over against a summation of the undoing of the blessings (vv 29b–32) given earlier in vv 3– 13. Inside this frame we find the familiar triad of pestilence, famine, and sword, in which the climax is reached in v 26 with its portrayal of ignoble death in warfare where the corpses remain unburied. The inner frame around the unit I have titled “Destruction by famine and war” presents parallel structures on the subject of pestilence, each of which presents a list of seven afflictions. As the first five-part structure highlights in its center (v 26) the ravages of war, so the second has its focus on the exile from the land of Israel that is the result of that boils,” appears in v 27 (“boils of“ ,שׁחין military debacle (vv 36–37). The word Egypt”) and again in v 35, where it is set over against another summation of the undoing of the earlier blessings (vv 38–42). The description of these “evil boils” in v 35 is virtually identical to Job’s affliction as presented in Job 2:7. The general theme of the curses to follow is announced in v 20 in poetic fashion ,curse“ ,מגערתand ,מהומה , מארה with alliteration in Hebrew: YHWH will send confusion, and cumbrance.” The inner frame (vv 21–22 and 27–29) follows with two parallel presentations of seven afflictions: A YHWH will make pestilence cling to you until you are destroyed 28:21 ( בשׁחפת בקדחת ובדלקת) B Consumption, fever, and inflammation 28:22a ( וּבחרחר) X Fiery heat 28:22a ( ובחרב ובשׁדפון ובירקון) B Drought, scorching, and mildew 28:22a A′ These will pursue you until you perish 28:22b A YHWH will strike you with boils of Egypt and with hemmorrhoids 28:27a B And with scurvy and with itch of which you cannot be healed 28:27a X YHWH will strike you with madness, blindness, confusion of heart 28:28a B′ You shall grope about like a blind man—you shall not prosper 28:29a A′ You will be mistreated and robbed—without anyone to help 28:29b In the first series, the seven deadly forms of pestilence become reified; for “they will pursue you until you perish” (v 22b). The second series is introduced with the “boils” of Egypt, and the structure focuses on the psychological torment that produces (שׁחין) insanity (v 28a). The central section, which describes the destruction by famine and war, is framed by earth,” in vv 23 and 26, which“ ,ארץ heavens,” and“ ,שׁמים repetition of the words appear in reverse order in v 24 as well. The structure of the subunit as a whole may be outlined as follows: A The skies shall be as brass and the earth as iron 28:23–24 B YHWH will cause you to be defeated before your enemies 28:25a X You shall go out against them one way and flee seven ways 28:25b B You shall become an object of trembling to all kingdoms 28:25c A′ Your corpses—food for birds of the heavens and beasts of the earth 28:26 The structure highlights the totality of the destruction, which moves from the heavens to the earth—from drought to military defeat—leaving nothing but corpses to be consumed by birds of the heavens and beasts of the earth. The expansion of the curses in vv 20–32 concludes with a portrayal of the reversal of the threefold blessing of vv 4 and 11: A Loss of wife and home 28:30a B A vineyard you shall plant and you shall not use it 28:30b X Your ox eaten by others and your ass stolen 28:31a B′ Your sheep shall be given to your enemies 28:31b A′ Loss of sons and daughters—helpless, you will see it all 28:32 The concluding note on the bitter sorrow for the great loss of family, home, and property, with “no power (to help) in your hand,” sets the stage for the further expansion of the curses in 28:33–44. The powerlessness to do anything at all produces insanity (vv 33–34); for “YHWH shall strike you with evil boils … from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head” (v 35). The picture is that of the suffering of Job at the hands of Satan. In this instance it leads to exile from the promised land “to a nation that you have not known … and you will serve there other gods of wood and stone” (v 36). Another portrayal of the reversal of the threefold blessing of vv 4 and 11 follows in vv 38–42, which may be outlined as follows:

shall consume your crops (הארבה) A The locust 28:38 ( התלעת) B Your vineyards shall be consumed by the worm 28:39 X Your olive trees will produce no fruit for oil 28:40 B′ Your sons and daughters shall go into captivity 28:41 ( הצלצל) A′ All your crops will be consumed by the grasshopper 28:42 The oil of the olive tree is a symbol for joy and comfort lost, for the olives will drop to the ground prematurely—there will be no oil of gladness (v 40). The vineyards will produce no wine because of the worm, which bred in the stale manna of the wilderness (see Exod 16:20). The outer frame moves from the reference to a plague of locusts (v 38) to that of grasshoppers (v 42), the proverbial source of agricultural disaster. The expansion of the curses in vv 20–44 concludes with a brief note on the reversal of fortune as the alien, who in times past was a symbol of poverty in the midst of the people of Israel, is now the one to whom the people turn for subsistence: “he will be the head and you will be the tail” (v 44). It should be noted that this is a reversal of the final blessing in the original expansion of the covenant blessings in vv 12–13. The prosodic analysis suggests that v 20 belongs with the seven afflictions from pestilence in vv 21–22 as a literary unit that scans (4:4):(6:6):(4:4) in accentual stress units. With other minor adjustments in vv 26 and 35, the resultant nine-part structure is essentially the “chiasm” observed by Tigay ([1996] 491): A Seven afflictions from pestilence 28:20–22 B Drought and famine 28:23–25 C The “sword”—ignoble death in warfare 28:26 D Seven more afflictions (including boils) 28:27–29 X Undoing of the blessings 28:30–32 D′ Oppression and boils sickness (cf. Job) 28:33–35 C′ Exile from the land 28:36–37 B′ Undoing of the blessing 28:38–42 A′ Impoverishment and debt 28:43–44 Tigay noted that the curses delineated here include virtually all of those mentioned in vv 16–19 and also appear to be an elaboration, in reverse order, of the blessings and promises of vv 1–15 ([1996] 542 n. 9). A similar chiastic structure was found by Thompson for vv 25–37, with vv 30–32 as the focal point ([1974] 273). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers in vv 20–44 may be summarized as follows: after ˒atnāḥ Words: before ʾatnāḥ ̣

28:20– (= 3 × 28 + 23 = 51 22 17) 28:23– (= 2 × (= 3 × 34 + 17 = 51 26 17) 17) 28:27– 11 + 6 = 17 28 28:29– (= 3 × 33 + 18 = 51 31 17) 28:32– 34 (= 2 × + 17 = 51 (= 3 ×

35 17) 17) 28:36– (= 3 × 26 + 25 = 51 39 17) 28:40– 12 + 14 = 26 42 28:43– 12 + 10 = 22 44

28:20– (= 5 × 190 + 130 = 320 44 26) (= 20 × 28:1–44 340 + 226 = 565 17)

28:23– 13 + 10 = 23 24

28:47– 22 + 10 = 32 48 28:33– (= 8 × 73 + 63 = 136 44 17) 28:38– (= 4 × 31 + 37 = 68 44 17)

28:20– (= 10 × 106 + 64 = 170 31 17) 28:23– (= 3 × (= 7 × 78 + 41 = 119 31 26) 17) 28:27– (= 4 × 44 + 24 = 68 31 17) 28:30– 22 + 10 = 32 31

Once again, we find the divine-name numbers 17 and 26, along with the two numerical glory” (23 and 32) woven into the Hebrew text of vv 20–44 in a“ ,כבוד values for variety of ways. The most striking observation is that there are a total of 51 (= 3 × 17) words in five of the first six subunits in vv20–39. Moreover, a major break is found at and there will not be for you a“ ,ואין לך מושׁיע the end of v 31 with the words savior,” which marks the boundary between the two expanded descriptions of future disaster in the prosodic analysis presented in this commentary (vv 20–31 and 32–44).

Comment

,מגערת and ,מהומה , מארה :The three afflictions are alliterated in Hebrew 20 which Tigay reproduces in English translation as “Curse, Confusion, and Cumbrance” which means ,ארר calamity,” comes from the root“ ,מארה The noun .(261 [1996]) ,מהומה blessing,” in v 8. The term“ ,ברכהto curse,” and is the opposite of“ “confusion,” refers to the turmoil and panic inspired by God in the traditions of Holy War in ancient Israel, often translated “panic” or “discomfit” in the KJV (Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; 1 Sam 5:11; 7:10, etc.). What we have here is a reversal of YHWH’s cumbrance,” which appears only here in the Hebrew“ ,מגערת Holy War. The term rebuke” or “restrain,” which refers to God“ ,גער Bible, comes from the root “restraining” the rain in vv 23–24 with the resultant crop failures (cf. vv 38–42). denotes the physical expression of God’s“ מגערת ,(According to Craigie ([1976] 342 anger” (based on MacIntosh, VT 19 [1969] 471–79; and Reif, VT 21 [1971] 241–44). As Mayes put it, “With God as subject it may also denote the effective working out of his anger, and so come close to the sense of ‘curse’ ” ([1981] 354). 21 The “pestilence” is a severe epidemic of some sort that produces the seven afflictions of the next verse (v 22). 22 Of the seven afflictions listed, some are uncertain because of our limited consumption,” is probably“ ,שׁחפת :knowledge of ancient medical terminology inflammation,” is some“ ,דלקת ;fever,” may have been malaria“ ,קדחת ;tuberculosis fiery heat,” may apply to “burning up” of“ ,חרחר ;kind of “burning” disease drought,” is the “heat” of both the sun and of“ ,חרב ;vegetation in the drought mildew,” normally refer to crop afflictions but“ ,ירקון scorching,” and“ ,שׁדפון ;fever may also be interpreted as human illness such as jaundice and emaciation. For useful discussions of disease in the Bible, see R. K. Harrison (IDB 1:847–54) and M. Sussman (ABD 6:6–15). ”and the “land” to “iron (נחשׁת) ”The likeness of the “heavens” to “brass 24–23 refers to hot sun and dry ground. The dryness of the cursed soil here stands in (ברזל) sharp contrast to the moist soil of the blessed land in v 12. Wiseman (Vassal- Treaties, 88) called attention to a significant parallel to this particular curse in the Esarhaddon treaty, which Thompson ([1974] 273) quotes as follows (ll. 530–33): Just as rain does not fall from a brazen heaven So may rain and dew not come upon your fields And your meadows; may it rain burning coals instead of dew on your land. The terms “powder and dust” refer to the duststorms stirred up by the parched soil. 25–26 The phrase “seven roads” is used figuratively to express the idea of a large derives from (זעוה) ”number (cf. v 7 above). The term rendered “object of trembling to tremble, quake.” On the image of Israel as an object of“ ,זוע the Hebrew root trembling, see Jer 15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17. The phrase “your corpses will be food” refers to the unburied bodies of Israel’s fallen warriors (cf. Jer 7:33; 34:20). The phrase “to frighten them off” refers to protecting the corpses from being consumed by birds of prey. See 2 Sam 21:10. 27 The identifications of the four diseases mentioned here are not certain. The even though the ,שׁחיןfamiliar translation “boils of Egypt” is retained here for Hebrew term probably refers to some kind of dermatitis characteristic of Egypt; Tigay equates it with the sixth of the ten plagues in Egypt (Exod 9:8–12), perhaps skin anthrax ([1996] 263; see also Hort, ZAW 69 [1957] 101–2). Mayes suggests possible candidates for the “boils of Egypt” in such diverse ailments as elephantiasis, the “Baghdad Button,” or the “Jericho Rose” ([1981] 354). More recently, Wilkinson identified the boils mentioned here as cutaneous anthrax (Bible and Healing, 48). According to mean “hemorrhoids”; but the former טחרים and Q עפלים rabbinic tradition, both K “was considered vulgar (like English ‘piles’) and was therefore replaced with the more polite teḥorim when the Torah was read in the synagogue” (Tigay [1996] 264; cf. v 30 below). On the identification of this disease see Neustätter, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 11 (1942) 36–47. The old Douay version put it rather well when it paraphrased the Hebrew text “the part of thy body, by which the dung is cast out.” The ,itch,” are also serious skin afflictions“ ,חרס scurvy,” and“ ,גרבafflictions of with a גרב according to cognates in other Semitic languages. Weinfeld has identified form of leprosy (Bib 41 [1960] 418 n. 3; cf. Craigie [1976] 344 n. 23). madness,” is used in 2 Kgs 9:20 to describe the manner in“ ,שׁגעון The term 29–28 which Jehu drove his chariot in Jezreel. In the present context it probably means ranting blindness,” here probably refers to psychological“ ,עורון and raving. The confusion of heart,” which means“ ,תמהסן לבב incapacitation, along with consternation or bewilderment. The people, as if they were blind, will “grope about at noonday” as one does “in the dark.” The interpretation of v 28 in terms of syphilis is debatable, as Craigie has shown ([1976] 344 n. 24). 30–32 The statement that “your eyes … will be spent with tears for them” presents the picture of “cried-out eyes,” somewhat like the English idiom “to cry one’s eyes out translated here as ,אין לאל ידך for them.” The specific meaning of the Hebrew idiom “there will be no power (to help) in your hand,” is problematic. The key phrase here אל “ ,god of the hand” or “the god who is at one’s side” (C. Brockelmann“ ,אל יד is ZAW 26 [1906] 29–32). The full meaning of the idiom would then be “the god of ,” ידי PN’s hand has the power to.…” Such a reading, however, presupposes “a survival from a pre-monotheistic stage of Hebrew,” as Tigay has noted ([1996] 396 n. 54). 33–34 The reference to “all your toil” is to the products of hard physical labor. The people of Israel will be left with nothing. evil boils,” cover the body “from the sole of your foot to the“ ,שׁחין רע The 35 crown of your head”; Job suffered the same affliction (cf. v 27above and Job 2:7). 36–37 The people of Israel will be sent into exile “to a nation that you have not known.” The wording here, “your king that you will set up over you,” is similar to that of 17:14–20. The institution of kingship is presented as a necessary evil (cf. also 1 Sam 12:13). Hope in the leadership of a king is futile if the people are not faithful to their a source of ”,[שׁמה] covenant agreement with YHWH: “you will become a horror byword,” indicate that Israel“ ,שׁנינה proverb,” and“ ,משׁלconsternation. The terms will become an object lesson to others, an object of “sharp” or “cutting” remarks (so Driver [1895] 312). 38–40 The curses here elaborate the summary statement of v 18 and are the converse of the blessings in vv 11–13. An attack of locusts was the eighth of the ten will consume their “vineyards.” “And oil you (תלעת) ”plagues in Egypt. The “worm will not have to anoint yourself” because the olive trees will fail. 41–42 With so few people left to work the land, it will be overrun with destructive locust“ ,ארבה buzzing cricket,” here forms an inclusion with“ ,צלצל insects. That swarm,” of v 38 suggests that we have here another destructive insect, which “will possess (the land).” If so, the so-called mole cricket (Gryllotalpa) is a good candidate .(Aharoni, Osiris 5 [1938] 478; see Tigay [1996] 397 n. 69) צלצל for

Explanation One of the more important lessons of the long list of curses in Deut 28 is also a primary lesson in the story of the prophet Jonah: the simple fact that “there is no running from God but by running to him, no fleeing from his justice but by fleeing to his mercy” (M. Henry, Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1828] 681). Jonah was convinced that he was free to disobey God by fleeing to Tarshish. A close reading of that text, however, reveals that Jonah was not in fact free to disobey God. Nor are we. The only person in the story of Jonah who is actually free is God, who is even free to change his own mind (Jonah 3:10 NRSV: “God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it”), and to give the very words he entrusts to his prophet a meaning other than what the prophet himself understands. According to the text of Deut 28, the curse of God follows a person wherever one may choose to go, for there is no escape from the relentless “hound of heaven.” Jonah’s flight from God’s presence took him to “the roots of the mountains” in the nether world; but even in the Pit there was no way to escape from God (Jonah 2:5–6). As the summary curses here in Deut 28:16–19 put it, “Cursed are you in the city; and cursed are you in the field.… Cursed are you in your coming in; and cursed are you in your going out” (cf. Prov 3:33). The book of Job speaks to the same issue: “They will flee from an iron weapon; a bronze arrow will strike them through” (Job 20:24 NRSV). The imagery is similar to that of the prophet Amos, when he described the “day of the LORD”: it is “as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake” (Amos 5:19 NRSV). Whatever the sinner does is under the curse—“in all the undertakings of your hand that you shall do,” (v 20) there is constant vexation of disappointment, for God’s curse in vv 15–19 is the opposite of his blessing in vv 1–14. The enumeration of those curses in the expansions that follow (vv 20–44, 45–68) in ever more focused detail of horror is intended to evoke a deep and lasting impression on the hearer. The judgments of God in vv20–44 focus primarily on sufferings from pestilence (vv 21–22), famine, and war (vv 23–26), leading to the loss of everything, including the very promised land itself in the bitterness of exile (vv 36–37). Those who are subject to the covenant curses will be plundered of all their enjoyments, including their homes and their families (vv 30–32). Their sons and daughters will be carried into captivity (v 41). Those who remain shall be insulted and tyrannized by strangers (vv 43–44). Such was the case with the Northern Kingdom, which fell to the might of the Assyrian Empire in the eighth century B.C.E. (2 Kgs 17:24), and to the Southern that fell to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. (2 Kgs 24–25). When the text of Deut 28:15–68 is read with knowledge of the subsequent history of ancient Israel, the curses assume the nature of prophetic speech in describing what Craigie called “an aweful inevitability” ([1976] 341). It is not hard to understand the response of King Josiah to these very words: “And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his clothes” in dismay (2 Kgs 22:11). Moreover, when we realize that we as God’s people today have the same sinful nature as they, then the inevitability of the curse weighs heavily upon us too. “It is at this point that the gospel message of the New Testament casts light into the darkness evoked by the curse” (Craigie [1976] 341). He then cites the words of William Blake, in his poem “The Everlasting Gospel,” which merit repetition: Jesus was sitting in Moses’ chair. They brought the trembling woman there. Moses commands she be stoned to death. What was the sound of Jesus’ breath? He laid his hand on Moses’ law. The ancient heavens in silent awe, Writ with curses from pole to pole. All away began to roll. “The inevitability of the curse can be removed only by Jesus, and that is possible only because ‘he redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13)” (Craigie [1976] 341). c. Third Expansion: Utter Privation in Siege Warfare (28:45–57) Bibliography

Baker, J. A. “Deuteronomy and World Problems.” JSOT 29 (1984) 3–17, esp. 87. Cutler, B., and MacDonald, J. “Identification of the Na˓ar in the Ugaraitic Texts.” UF 8 (1976) 27– 35. Fensham, F. C. “Ordeal by Battle in the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 127–35, esp. 133–35.Gray, J. Legacy of Canaan. 2nd ed. 1965. (lift up the faces” ZAW 95 (1983‘ נאשׂ פנים Gruber, M. I. The Many Faces of Hebrew .185 252–60, esp. 253–54.Jenni, E. “Faktitiv und Kausativ von ˓bd ‘zugrunde gehen.’ ” In FS W. in the Old פָ נִ י ם Baumgartner. 1967. 143–57. Johnson, A. R. “Aspects of the Use of the Term Testament.” In Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. J. Fuck. Halle: Niemeyer, 1947. 155–59, esp. 157. MacDonald, J. “The Status and Role of the NA˓AR in Israelite Society.” JNES 35 (1976) 147–70. Muffs, Y. “Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian.” In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: FS Morton Smith at Sixty, Part Three. Ed. J. Neusner. 4 vols. SJLA 12. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 1–36, esp. 5ff. ———. Love and Joy. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. 103–5, 121–25. ———. Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine [on Deut 28:47, ṭwb lēbāb]. Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 8. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Esp. 27–62. Oppenheim, A. L. “Siege Documents from Nippur.” Iraq 17 (1955) 77–78. Weinfeld, M. DDS. 126–29. Welch, A. C. Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code. 1932. 126–40.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis These Curses Will Pursue You Until You Are Destroyed [6:6]

45 And all these curses / will come upon you // 24 2 and they will pursue you / and they will overtake you / 16 2 until / you are destroyed // 7 2_ Because you did not hearken / to the voice / of YHWH your 20 3 God / to keep / his commandments and his statutes / 14 2 that he commanded you // 5 1_

Israel’s Utter Privation—“in want of all things” [(5:6):(6:5)]

46 And they will be with you / as a sign / and as a wonder // 18 3 and with your descendants / forever // 11 2_ 47 Because / you did not serve / YHWH your God / 19 3 with joy \ and with goodness of heart // 13 1 from the abundance / of everything // 6 2_ 48 And you will serve your enemies / 13 1 the ones whom YHWH will send / against you / 13 2 In hunger and in thirst / 12 1 and in nakedness / and in want of everything // 15 2_ And he will put / a yoke of iron / upon your neck / 15 3 until he has destroyed / you // 10 2_

Military Siege and the Undoing of God’s Blessing [(5:7):(6:6):(7:5)]

49 YHWH will raise up against you a nation / from afar / 19 2 from the end of the earth / 8 1 that will swoop / like the eagle // 9 2_ A nation / whose language \ you do not understand // 13 2 50 a nation \ of fierce countenance // 7 1 Who will show no regard / to the old / 16 2 and the young / will receive no compassion / 9 2_ 51 And it will devour / the fruit of your livestock | 11 2 and the fruit of your ground / until you are destroyed / 17 2 who will not leave behind / for you / 10 2_ Grain / new wine and oil / 12 2 the calving of your herds / and the lambing of your flock // 17 2 until it annihilates / you // 11 2_ 52 And it will besiege you / in all your towns / 14 2 until your walls come down / 10 1 The high and the fortified ones / 12 1 in which you / are trusting / throughout all your land // 19 3_ And it will besiege you \ in all your towns / 14 1 in all your land / 5 1 that YHWH your God / has given / to you // 16 3_

A Gruesome Climax: Cannibalism [(5:4):(5:4):(5:5):(4:5):(4:5)]

53 And you will eat the fruit of your own womb / 11 1 the flesh of your sons / and your daughters / 13 2 that YHWH your God / has given to you // 18 2_ In the siege / and in the straits / 12 2 with which your enemy / besieges you // 13 2_ 54 The man / the tenderest among you / and dainty / exceedingly // 18 4 his eye will be evil | 7 1_ Against his brother / 5 1 and against the woman of his bosom / 10 1 and against the rest of his children / that he has spared // 15 2_ 55 From giving \ to one of them / 9 1 some of the flesh of his children / that he is eating / 13 2 because he has nothing left to him / of anything // 11 2_ In the siege / and in the straits / 12 2 with which your enemy / besieges you / in all your towns // 23 3_ 56 The tenderest woman among you / indeed the daintiest one / 15 2 who would not try to set the sole of her foot / on the land / 21 2_ In spite of her daintiness \ and her tenderness // 12 1 her eye will be evil / against the man of her bosom / 14 2 and against her son / and against her daughter // 11 2_ 57 And her afterbirth / that goes out \ from between her legs / 20 2 and her children / that she bears / 14 2_ Indeed she will eat them out of lack of everything \ in secret // 17 1 in the siege \ and in the straits / 12 1 to which your enemy / reduces you / in your towns // 22 3_

Notes

they will destroy you,” for“ ,השׁמיד(ו)ך a. SP, OL, and Syr. read.45 .(until) you are destroyed” (cf. vv 20 and 24)“ ,השׁמדך MT

47.a. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. Prosodic analysis supports .(שׁם =) ”a. Some LXX witnesses add ἐκει, “there.48 MT.

your“ ,איביך for MT (איבך =) ”b-b. Vg. reads inimico tuo, “your enemy.48 ”.your [pl.] enemies“ ,איביכם enemies”; Tg. Ps.-J. reads 48.c-c. Omitted in LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

”.it will swoop“ ,ידאה it will see,” for MT“ ,יראה a. SP reads.49

49.b. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced sillûq. 50.a. Reading conj. accent mahpāk, which is the same sign as yĕtîb. 51.a. Reading the sequence of ˓azlā followed by mêrĕkā as disj.

it will cause you to be“ ,השׁמידך b-b. Some Heb. MSS, SP, and Syr. read.51 they“ ,השׂמידוךyou are destroyed.” OL presupposes“ ,השׁמדך destroyed,” for MT will destroy you” (cf. v 45 above). 51.c. A few Heb. MSS, OL, and Syr. add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

”.all“ ,כל a. LXX omits.52

52.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ”.all“ ,כל c. LXX omits.52 52.d-d. Omitted in LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 52.e-e. Omitted in LXX. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

”.your God“ ,אלהיך a-a. Omitted in SP, LXX; one Heb. MS omits.53 your“ ,איביך b. A number of Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and SP read.53 ”.your enemy“ ,איבך enemies,” for MT

”.he besieges“ ,יציק .c. SP and Tg. Ps.-J. read pl. for MT sg.53 54.a. Reading the sequence of ˓azlā followed by mahpāk as disj. 55.a. Reading lĕgarmēh as conj.

your enemies will“ ,יציקו לך איביך b-b. SP, LXX, OL, and Vg. read pl. forms.55 reduce you.” 56.a-a. Omitted in Vg.; LXX and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl.

.(from v 54 מאד =) ”b. LXX adds σφόδρα, “exceedingly.56

.to set her foot,” with no change in meaning“ ,הצג for MT הציגה c. SP reads.56

56.d. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 56.e. SP, LXX, and Vg. omit waw-conj.

it comes (forth),” with a number of Heb. MSS and SP“ ,הי(ו)צאת a. Reading.57 .with no change in meaing ,היוצת for MT 57.b. Reading lĕgarmēh as conj.

,ובבניה c. LXX reads καὶ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς, “and her (young) child,” for MT.57 “and her (newborn) children.”

57.d. Reading ṭip̱ ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ. 57.e. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. ”.your enemies reduce you“ ,יציקו לך איביך f-f. SP reads.57

in all your towns,” with most LXX (= ἐν πάσαις ταῖς“ ,בכל־שׁעריך g. Reading.57 here brings the total word count (כל) ”πόλεσίν σου), as in v 55. Adding the word “all in 28:45–57 to 221 (= 13 × 17).

Form/Structure/Setting The ravages of war and exile from the land of Israel, which were in focus at the center of the two five-part concentric structures in the first and second expanded description of future disaster (vv 20–44), are developed further in vv 45–57, which deals primarily with military defeat and its consequences. The section opens with an introductory verse (v 45) stating the theme that is reiterated in detail: servitude, starvation, and abject poverty (vv 47–48). It then describes a natural sequence of dire consequences: invasion on the part of a distant nation who will show no mercy (vv 49– 50), pillage of livestock and crops (v 51), siege (v 52), and starvation leading to cannibalism, which is described at length in horrible detail (vv 53–57). The opening verse (28:45) functions as a connecting link. It looks back to 28:15, which marked the beginning of the six curses in the covenant ceremony at Shechem, for the two verses are virtually identical, though in reverse order, as Tigay points out ([1996] 268): A If you will not hear the voice of YHWH your God … 28:15a B All these curses will overtake you 28:15b X The curses of 28:16–19 and 20–44 28:16–44 B′ All these curses will … overtake you 28:45a A′ Because you have not heard the voice of YHWH your God 28:45b It also looks back to 28:20, as Craigie has noted ([1976] 347), such that we may outline the three verses in a similar manner: A If you will not hear the voice of YHWH your God … 28:15a B All these curses will overtake you 28:15b X YHWH will send upon you curse, confusion, and cumbrance 28:20 B′ All these curses will … overtake you 28:45a A′ Because you have not heard the voice of YHWH your God 28:45b At the same time, the verse introduces the disasters of 28:46–57. From a prosodic point of view, the remainder of this section is in three parts: 28:46– 48, 49–52, and 53–57. Israel’s coming punishment is presented as a just reversal of their former prosperity: “Because you did not serve YHWH your God … from the abundance of everything” (28:47). For that reason they now face utter privation “in want of everything” (28:48). The course of the coming military conquest in 28:49–52 is presented in concentric fashion: A YHWH will raise up against you a nation from afar 28:49 B Who will show no mercy to the old or the young 28:50 X That nation will undo the blessing of 28:3–13 28:51a–b B′ Until it annihilates you 28:51c A′ That nation will besiege you in all your towns 28:52 The central verse (28:51) includes most of the familiar phrases of Israel’s blessing from 28:4 and 11, and the undoing of that blessing in 28:30–32 and38–42. The first half of the outer frame in this structure has the word “nation” functioning as an envelope in 28:49–50a, whereas the second half has the statement “it will besiege you in all your towns” functioning in the same manner in 28:52. The two sentences may be outlined as follows: “YHWH will raise up against you a A 28:49a ישׂא יהוה עליך גוי ”nation מרחוק מקצה B “from afar, from the end of the earth,”

הארץ

X “that will swoop like the eagle,” כאשׁר ידאה הנשׁר

גוי אשׁר לא־תשׁמע a nation whose language you do not“ B′ 28:49b understand,” לשׁנו

28:50a גוי עז פנים ”A′ “a nation of fierce countenance “And it will besiege you in 28:52a וחצר לך בכל־שׁעריך A all your towns”

B “until your walls come down,” עד רדת חמתיך X “the high and the fortified ones” הגבהות והבצרות

אשׁר אתה בטח בהן in which you are trusting“ B′ throughout all your land” בכל־ארצך “and it will besiege you in 28:52b והצר לך בכל־שׁעריך ′A all your towns”

In this reading, the nation whom God has appointed to undo Israel’s covenant blessings is described in the regal image of an eagle swooping down on its prey to destroy “impregnable” fortresses in his path. The final gruesome scene of the inhabitants of Israel reduced to cannibalism may also be outlined in a five-part concentric structural pattern: A You shall eat your children “in the siege and in the straits” 28:53 B The man—“his eye will be evil against his brother” 28:54 X He will not share “in the the siege and in the straits” 28:55 B′ The woman—“her eye will be evil against the man of her bosom” 28:56 A′ She will eat them in secret “in the the siege and in the straits” 28:57 The curse here is made more painful by repetition of the words “fruit of your own womb” (28:53), which also appear as part of the covenant blessing in28:4. The famine in the land will cause such utter desperation that even the most natural human instincts of compassion will be destroyed: husbands and wives will turn against each other and their own children, refusing to share their meager portion of human flesh. Identical words appear at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the above in the the siege and in“ ,במצור ובמציק אשׁר יציק לך איבך :concentric structure the straits with which your enemy besieges you.” These words constitute the motivating cause for the horrible scenes delineated on the part of husbands (vv 54–55a) and their wives (vv 56–57a), who eat the flesh of their own children in order to survive. For parallel references to cannibalism in ancient Near Eastern texts, see Weinfeld, DDS, 126–29. The gruesome climax of the curses in 28:53–57 are used to shape the telling of the narrative in 2 Kgs 6:24–31 on the siege and fall of Samaria to Ben-hadad, king of Syria. The use of the curses here on the part of the prophet Jeremiah are evident in Jer 4:13; 5:15, 17; 19:9; 28:14; 48:40; and 49:22. See also Lam 2:20; 4:10. The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers ,all,” in the second half of v 57“ ,כל in 28:45–57, modified by the addition of the word may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

28:45 9 + 11 = 20 28:46– 26 + 13 = 39 48

28:49– 13 + 13 = 26 50 28:51– 33 + 14 = 47 ( ארור =) 52 28:53– 52 (= 2 × 26) + 37 = 89 57

28:45– (= 13 × 133 + 88 = 221 57 17)

28:47– 22 + 10 = 32 48 28:52– (= 17 + 26 + 17 = 43 53 26) 28:52 15 + 11 = 26

28:53 11 + 6 = 17

28:54– 16 + 17 = 33 55

Once again, the use of the divine-name numbers here corroborates the structure determined independently on the prosodic analysis presented in this commentary with each of the subunits, except for vv 45 and 51–53, having the divine-name number 26 woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text. Moreover, the total number of words in 28:45–57 as a whole comes to 221 (= 13 × 17). Both divine-name numbers appear in the totals for vv 52 and 53and various combinations of the verses throughout the unit. cursed,” appears as the total word count for“ ,ארור The numerical value of Hebrew vv 51–52 (cf. 28:15–19).

Comment 45 “All these curses” are reified in the sense that “they will pursue you and they will overtake you.” Nonetheless, they remain under God’s absolute control (see Comment on 28:2 and 28:20). ,אותות They will be with you as a sign and as a wonder.” Since the terms“ 46 wonders,” are used for the ten plagues in Egypt“ ,מופתים signs,” and“ (see 4:34; 6:22; 34:11), we have here another grand reversal with Israel treated as Egypt has the meaning “warning” or אות was in times past. In Num 17:3 and 25, the term “lesson,” which is probably the intent here as well. you did (not) serve,” is in the perfect tense. Craigie“ ,(לא)־עבדת The verb 48–47 observes, “Within the address on the curse, the speaker is so carried away by his theme that it now seems that the curse is inevitable, and the words are almost as if the curse had already been put into effect” ([1976]348). Because the people did not serve YHWH “with joy and with goodness of heart” over the “abundance of everything,” they “will serve their enemies … in hunger and in thirst and in nakedness and in want of everything.” Muffs finds significant linguistic parallels in Akkadian literature to the with joy and goodness of heart,” in which the words are“ ,בשׂמחה ובטוב לבבphrase used metaphorically to mean “willingly” and “with spontaneity” (Love and Joy, 121– 24). To receive the blessing of God and to experience no joy in it and to offer no thanks for it was to invite the curse of God. The total privation conveyed in the phrase “in want cf. v 57) comes as the result of military conquest. The ;בחסר כל) ”of everything “yoke of iron” is a common metaphor to express submission to foreign rule (cf. Jer 27:8–12; 28:2–4, 11–14). In short, “The curse of God reverses the history of salvation: God had brought his people out of Egypt, where they served an enemy; but because in the course of time they rejected God’s love, they would be assigned once again to serve an enemy, forfeiting all the privileges of the covenant” (Craigie [1976] 348). 49–50 Mayes argues that the existence of a common tradition in the language of treaty curses, not direct literary dependence, explains the contacts between these two verses and Isa 5:26–29; Jer 5:15–19; 6:22–24; Hab 1:5–11 ([1981] 356). The nation “will swoop like the eagle” in the sense that its appearance will be sudden and without fierce countenance,” refers to“,פנים עז warning (cf. Hos 8:1; Jer 48:40). The phrase the ruthless character of the enemy as spelled out in what follows: they “will show no regard to the old, and the young will receive no compassion” (cf. Isa 13:18; 47:6; Lam as meaning “angry,” see Muff’s discussion עז On the word .(13–5:12;4:16 (“Hebrew ˓oz = Akkadian ezzu, ‘anger,’ ” in Love and Joy, 103–5). Craigie calls attention to the play on words here ([1976] 349): “a nation fierce of face who do not lift up faces” (i.e., “show no compassion”). which appears twice in this verse, comes from the ,והצר Though the term 52 to besiege,” it means essentially the“ ,צור to bind, be restricted,” rather than“ ,צרר root same thing in this context, as Tigay notes: “it will besiege you” ([1996] 397 n. 84; cf. Jer 4:31; 49:24). 53–57 Israel is here presented in sharp moral contrast to the fierce enemy of the previous verses. The siege and famine that result will be so intense that the people will eventually resort to cannibalism, even eating their own children; and husbands and wives will be unwilling to share their meager portion of human flesh with each other. On cannibalism in ancient Israel see 2 Kgs 6:28–29; Isa 9:19; Lam 2:20; 4:10. It also occurred during the final siege of Jerusalem in the days of the Second Temple as reported by Josephus (J. W. 6.3.4 §§201–13). The phrase translated “the fruit of your ,במצור ובמצוק own womb” appears also in the blessing of v 4. In the phrase translated here as “in the siege and in the straits,” a double meaning appears to be means “siege,” as the RSV has מצור intended for the first word. Normally the word rendered it. The meaning “distress,” which appears in the JPSTanakh translation, is was מָ צ וֹ ר Tigay says the reading . מָ צ וֹ ר straits, distress,” for MT“ , מֵ צַ ר reading -such that the text intends “both meanings as a double מָ צוֹק selected to rhyme with entendre” ([1996] 270). “The man, the tenderest among you and dainty exceedingly,” will eat the most disgusting food, which he will jealously guard from even “the woman [wife] of his bosom,” toward whom one would expect the warmest feelings (v 54). “His eye will be evil” means that he will “eye grudgingly.” The gender of the same words is reversed in v 56 so as to read “the most refined and gentle woman,” where the horror is carried even further as she secretly consumes “her afterbirth that goes out from between her legs,” and the newborn infant as well, to avoid sharing them with her husband and in the sense of surviving the ,(אשׁר יותיר) ”older children. The phrase “who remain invasion and famine (with RSV), can be rendered, as it is here, “that he has spared” (v 54)—those whom the fastidious man has not slaughtered and eaten (with Tanakh).

Explanation The portrayal of destruction that follows is more dreadful, with Israel experiencing utter privation in siege warfare (vv 45–57), culminating in the complete reversal of Israel’s history (vv 58–68), in which YHWH causes them to return to Egypt (vv 66–68). If the people of Israel refuse to “hearken to the voice of YHWH your God to keep his commandments and his statutes,” then “all these curses will come upon you and they will pursue you and they will overtake you until you are destroyed” (v 45). The severity of the destruction shall stand “as a sign and as a wonder” to future generations (v 46). If they would not serve God “with joy and with goodness of heart” (v 47), they shall be compelled to “serve [their] enemies … in want of everything” (v48). The coming military siege will result in the total undoing of God’s blessing of times past at the hands of “a nation from afar, from the end of the earth, that will swoop down like the eagle … until it annihilates you” (vv 49–51). The climactic portrayal of utter depravation is the most gruesome scene in the Bible, as the severity of the ensuing famine reduces the populace to starvation and the inhuman behavior of cannibalism in which they kill and eat their own children (v 53). It is interesting to note that Jesus, in his farewell address to his disciples, spoke in somewhat similar fashion of a “desolating sacrilege” in the city of Jerusalem, as foretold by the prophet Daniel, in which there would be “great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Matt 24:15–21 NRSV). d. The Complete Reversal of Israel’s History (28:58–68) Bibliography

Brueggemann, W. “Weariness, Exile and Chaos (A Motif in Royal Theology).” CBQ 34 (1972) 19–38, esp. 30 (on Deut 28:65). Clements, R. E. God’s Chosen People: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1968. 57. Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VI.” Bib 49 (1968) 355–69, esp. 365. ———. “Ugaritic Studies and the Bible.” Greg 43 (1962) 55–79, esp. 64. Daniélou, J. “Das Leben, das am Holze hängt: Dt 28, 66 in des altchristlichen Katechese.” In FS J. R. Geiselmann. 1960. 22–34. —— —. “La vie suspendue au bois: Dt 28, 66 dans la catéchèse archaïque.” In Eglise et Tradition.Ed. J. Betz et al. Le Puy: Mappus, 1963. 35–45. Duffy, C. Siege Warfare. 2 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979. 1:253. Gruber, M. I. “Hebrew da˒ābôn nepeš ‘Dryness of Throat’: From Symptom to Literary Convention.” VT 37 (1987) 365– 69. Hausmann, J. Israels Rest: Studien zum Selbstverständnis der nachexilischen Gemeinde. BWANT 124. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987. 120–22. Held, M. “The Terms for Deportation in the Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions with Special Reference to YahÉdunlim.” In Near Eastern Studies in Memory of M. M. Bravmann. Ed. E. Greenstein. JANESCU 11 (1979) 53–67. Lipinåski, E. “Sale, Transfer and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology.” In Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien. Ed. H. Klengel. SGKAO 15. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. 173–85. Lohfink, N. “ ‘I Am Yahweh, Your Physician’ (Exodus 15:26): God, Society and Human Health in a Postexilic Revision of the Pentateuch (Exod. 15:25b, 26).” In Theology of the Pentateuch. 1994. 35–95. Muffs, Y. “The Lesson of the Almond Tree.” Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 56 (1995) 32–34.Oded, B. “Mass Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire—Facts and Figures.” EI 14 (1978) 62–68 (Heb.; Eng. summary, 124). Salisbury, H. E. The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. 376–77, 492, 507. Schley, D. G. “ ‘YHWH Will Cause You to Return to Egypt in Ships’ (Deuteronomy XXVIII 68).” VT 35 (1985) 369–72. Stoebe, H. J. “Anmerkungen zu Wurzel pl˒im Alten Testament.” TZ 28 (1972) 13–23. Widengren, G. “Yahweh’s Gathering of the Dispersed.” In FS G. W. Ahlström. 1984. 227–45. Wildberger, H. “ ‘Glauben’: Erwägungen zu h˒mjn.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 372–86, esp. 379. Zeitlin, S. “Some Reflections on the Text of the Pentateuch.” JQR 51 (1960/61) 321–31. Translation and Prosodic Analysis You Will Experience the “Plagues” of Egypt [(6:6:8):(8:8)]

58 If you are not careful / to do / all the words / of this Torah / 23 4 written / in this scroll // 12 2_ To fear / the name / this honored and awesome / One / 20 4 namely / YHWH your God // 11 2_ 59 Then YHWH will inflict / on you blows / 14 2 and / blows on your descendants // 9 2_ Blows that are great / and lasting / 15 2 and afflictions that are evil / and lasting // 17 2_ 60 And he will return upon you / every disease of Egypt / 16 2 from which you were in dread / of them // 9 2 and they will cling / to you // 8 2 61 indeed every sickness / and every blow / 10 2_ That / is not written / in the scroll / of this Torah // 19 4 YHWH will bring / against you / until / you are destroyed // 16 4_

Your Numbers Will Be Decimated [8]

62 And you will be left / a scant few / after having been / 18 3 as the stars of the heavens / for multitude // 15 2 because you did not heed / the voice / of YHWH your God // 19 3_

YHWH Takes Delight in Destroying You [6:6]

63 And it shall be / just as YHWH took delight / in you / 17 3 by doing good for you / and by multiplying you / 15 2 so YHWH will take delight \ in you / 13 1_ By causing you to perish / and by destroying you // 15 2 and you will be plucked / from off the ground / 14 2 that you are entering / to possess it // 14 2_

YHWH Will Scatter You among the Nations [(4:4):(4:4)]

64 And YHWH will scatter you / among all the peoples / 16 2 from one end of the land / to the other end of the land // 18 2_ And you will serve there other gods / 17 1 that you have not known / you or your fathers / 18 2 of wood and stone // 7 1_ 65 And among these nations / you will find no ease / 17 2 and there will be no rest / for the sole of your foot // 15 2_ And YHWH will give you there / an anguished heart / 16 2 and cried-out eyes / and a dry throat // 16 2_

YHWH Will Make You Return to Egypt [(7:4):(2:2):(7:4)]

66 And your life will / hang in doubt / before you // 18 3 and you will be in dread / night and day / 14 2 and you will have no assurance / of your life // 12 2_ 67 In the morning you will say / If only it were evening / 14 2 and in the evening you will say / If only it were morning // 17 2_ From the dread of your heart / that you will dread / 14 2 and from the sight of your eyes / that you will see // 15 2_ 68 And YHWH will return you / to Egypt / in mourning / 18 3 by the way / that I told you / 13 2 never again will you / see it // 13 2_ And you will sell yourselves there | to your enemies / 14 2 _2 18 ס // as male and female slaves / but there will be no buyer

Notes

your God.” Prosodic analysis supports“ ,אלהיך a. Some Heb. MSS and SP add.59 the shorter text of MT.

(blow(s“ ,מכתך for MT מך(ו)תיך b. A few Heb. MSS, Syr., and Vg. read.59 upon you,” with no change in meaning.

and“ ,וחלים to be sick”) for MT“ ,חלא from) וחלאים c. A few Heb. MSS read.59 . וחלייםafflictions”; two Heb. MSS and Cairo Geniza fragments read

disease of” (constr. form), with some Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza“ ,מדוי a. Reading.60 ”.disease of“ ,מדוה fragments, SP, Syr., Tg., and Vg., for MT

”.they will cling“ ,ודבקו it will cling,” for MT“ ,ודבק .b. SP reads 3 sg.60

.scroll,” with some Heb“ ,ספר this,” to agree with“ ,הזה .a. Reading masc. sg.61 ,תורה fem. sg.) to agree with) הזאת MSS, SP, LXX, OL, Syr., and Tg. for MT “Torah, instruction” (cf. 29:20; 30:10; 31:26). he exterminates you,” for“ ,השׁמידך b. One Heb. MS, SP, Syr., and Vg. read.61 ”.you are destroyed“ ,השׁמדך MT 62.a. SP, LXX, OL, and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl. 62.b. See previous note; some LXX witnesses read 1 pl. here.

63.a. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭȯn as conj. which is possible in terms of mora ,(מהר =) ”b. LXX adds ἐν τάχει, “quickly.63 count. The emendation would disturb the carefully worked out numerical composition of 28:58–68, which has 78 (= 3 × 26) words after ʾatnāḥ. The passage is closely connected to 28:69, for the total of words in28:58–69 is 208 (= 8 × 26). Adding a word here would destroy both of these features. 65.a. SP omits waw-conj.

and from“ ,ומדיבון Dibon” (?), with one MS reading“ ,ודיבון b. SP reads.65 ”.(dryness (of throat“ ,ודאבון Dibon” (?), for MT

Egypt”; a“ ,מצרים to(ward) Egypt,” for MT“ ,מצרימה a. Sebire and SP read.68 .maj צ few MSS have

in“ , בַּ אֲ נִ ָ יּ ה an abstract pl. of ,בַּ אֲ נִ יּוֹת in ships,” as“ , בָּ אֳ נִ י וֹ ת b. Reading MT.68 mourning” or “in a lamentful condition,” with J. Z. Meklenburg (Ha-Ketav ve-ha- Kabbalah [Leipzig, 1839], cited by Tigay [1996] 397 n. 104) and others. One SP MS . באוניות reads 68.c. SP and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl.

a few MSS ;(התמכרתָּ =) ”d. Vg. reads venderis, “you [sg.] will sell yourself.68 .maj כ read 68.e. Reading the sequence of pašṭāʾ followed by dargā as disj.

to your [pl.] enemies,” for“ ,לאיביכם .f. SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. read 2 pl.68 ”.to your [sg.] enemies“ ,לאיביך MT

Form/Structure/Setting The content of 28:58–68 forms the conclusion to the long and complex list of covenant curses in Deut 28; taken as a whole, the content may be outlined as follows: A Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience 28:1–19 B Expansion of curses: pestilence, famine, and disease 28:20–32 X Expansion of curses: oppression, exile, and slavery 28:33–44 B′ Expansion of curses: utter privation in siege warfare 28:45–57 A′ The complete reversal of Israel’s history 28:58–68 The outer frame in this structure moves from the summary statement of the covenant blessings and curses (vv 1–19), to the complete reversal of Israel’s history for violating the terms of the covenant (vv 58–68), followed by a brief summation of the whole matter in v 69. Within that frame we find a three-part expansion of the covenant curses with a description of oppression, exile, and a return to slavery in the middle (vv 33–44). The structure of 28:45–68 may be outlined in a similar five-part concentric structure, a “wheel within a wheel”: A These curses will pursue you until you are destroyed 28:45 B Israel’s utter privation—in lack of everything 28:46–48 X Military siege and the undoing of God’s blessings 28:49–52 B′ Israel reduced to cannibalism—in lack of everything 28:53–57 A′ Complete reversal of Israel’s history until you are destroyed 28:58–68 The disasters presented in 28:58–68 not only undo the blessings promised in 28:1– 15 but also completely reverse Israel’s history—sending them back to “slavery” in until you are“ ,עד השׁמדך Egypt! The outer frame includes repetition of the words destroyed” (vv 45, 61). The inner frame in this structure is made up of parallel accounts ”in want of everything“ ,בחסר כל of utter privation, both of which contain the words (vv 48, 57). In the center we find an account of a military siege to be waged against Israel that results in the undoing of the covenant blessings (vv 49–52). The structure of 28:58–68 may be described as another “wheel within a wheel.” From a prosodic point of view this section is in five parts: vv 58–61,62, 63, 64–65, and 66–68. The boundaries of the first three of these units are marked by the Numeruswechsel at the beginning and end of vv 62 and 63. The boundary at the end of v 68 is marked with both the Numeruswechsel and the sĕtu̇ māʾ layout marker. It is only the boundary between vv 65 and 66that must be determined on the basis of content and internal prosodic structure. The content of the whole may be outlined in a five-part concentric structure: A YHWH will bring back upon you the “plagues” of Egypt 28:58–61 B You will be decimated in numbers 28:62 X YHWH takes delight in destroying you 28:63 B′ YHWH will scatter you among the nations 28:64–65 A′ YHWH will make you return to Egypt 28:66–68 What is most disturbing about this climactic structure, within the lengthy presentation of the covenant curses of Deut 28, is its center. Here YHWH himself declares that he takes delight in destroying Israel (v 63). In this reading the first and last prosodic units (vv 58–61 and 66–68) form an inclusion that focuses attention on Egypt in different ways. In the former instance, YHWH is bringing back upon the people of Israel the translated as “blow” here (it may also ,מכה diseases of Egypt (v 60), one of which is be translated “plagues”; see also v 59, where this word appears three times). This unit (vv58–61) is set over against vv 66–68, in which YHWH declares that he will make the people “return to Egypt in mourning” (see Comment). What we have here is a grand reversal of the epic story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Israel made their original descent into Egypt because of famine. Once again they will experience famine and poverty so severe that in order to obtain sustenance they will seek to become slaves in Egypt, only to suffer refusal; for “there will be no buyer” (v 68). In the first half of the inner frame (v 62), we learn that their numbers will be reduced to what they were before the “blessing in Egypt” (Exod 1:1–7), which set the stage for the birth of Moses and the exodus from Egypt. The means to that end are presented in the parallel prosodic unit (vv 64–65): “YHWH will scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the land to the other.” In that setting there will be no rest for the weary. The evidence from Labuschagne’s analysis on the use of the divine-name numbers in 28:58–69 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

28:58– 39 + 22 = 61 61 28:62 9 + 6 = 15

28:63 17 + 8 = 25

28:64– 18 + 21 = 39 65 28:66– 27 + 21 = 48 68

(= 3 28:58– 110 (= 2 × 55) + 78 × = 188 68 26) (= 8 28:58– 124 + 84 = 208 × 69 26) 28:1– 595 (= 35 × 17) + 397 = 992 69

28:58– 19 + 15 = 34 (= 2 59 × 17) 28:58– 28 + 17 = 45 60 28:62– 26 + 14 = 40 63 28:63– 26 + 19 = 45 64 (= 4 28:66– 41 + 27 = 68 × 69 17) 28:68– 26 + 13 = 39 69

Although the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 are not a dominant feature within the five rhythmic subunits, as determined by the prosodic analysis, the evidence does suggest that the scribes of ancient Israel labored carefully to integrate this passage into the larger pattern of their numerical composition. The divine-name number 17 appears in v 63, which occupies the central position in the concentric structure of the five major subunits in 28:58–68. In this verse, which declares that YHWH takes delight in destroying Israel, there are 17 words before ʾatnāḥ. Moreover, there are a total of 78 (= 3 × 26) words after ʾatnāḥ in 28:58–68 taken as a whole. The total number of words before ʾatnāḥ is 110 (= 2 × 55). Labuschagne has much to say about what he calls the “minor tetraktys,” in which the number 55 is the triangular number of 10 (the triangular number of 10 is the sum of the numbers 1 through 10), the decade, which is the triangular number of 4 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10). The compositional model 55 = 23 + 32 is used frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Labuschagne explains the significance of the numbers 23 or 32 23 = כבוד ”.glory“ ,כבוד and 32 in terms of the numerical value of the word -or 26 (i.e., the divine 17 = כבד or 20; without the waw 11 = ך depending on whether name number). See Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition.” It is the integration of 28:58–68 into its larger literary context where the use of the divine-name numbers is most impressive, for there are exactly 208 (= 8 × 26) words in 28:58–69, and 595 (= 35 × 17) words before ʾatnāḥ in 28:1–69. In short, God’s name is carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text throughout the long list of covenant curses in Deut 28.

Comment 58 At this point in the long list of curses, which is presented with a sense of inevitability, Moses reminds the reader/hearer once again that the matter is conditional. and it will come to pass” (as in v 15), indicates“ ,והיה That v 58 does not begin with that this verse can be read as the conclusion to vv46–57. All these things will come to pass “if you are not careful to do all the words of this Torah.” At the same time, the primary function of the verse is that of the protasis of a conditional sentence that continues in v 59. The reference to “all the words of this Torah written in this scroll,” which functions as a frame around vv 58–61, anticipates 31:9, where the Torah is first written down by Moses and entrusted to the Levites. The repeated words in v 61 appear in reverse order: “written in the scroll of this Torah.” Attention is already focused here on future generations who will receive the teachings (Torah) of Moses in written form. On the meaning of the injunction to “fear” God, see the Comment on 10:12 and on 6:2. The use without a pronominal suffix to refer to God himself is unusual in (השׁם) ”of “the name the Pentateuch, appearing only here and in Lev 24:11. This usage is common in subsequent Jewish practice to the present day. One wonders if this reference to the ineffable Name is also an attempt to call attention to the hidden ways in which this name is woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text in terms of its numerical composition. blows,” which appears three times in v 59 and again in“ ,מכות The term 60–59 v 61, is often translated as “plagues.” These plagues will be “extraordinary ones” in the sense that they will be “great [i.e., ‘severe’] and lasting.” God will afflict Israel with “every disease of Egypt” from which he had earlier promised to protect them (7:15). See also v 27 above and the Comment there on the so-called boils of Egypt. 61 The reference to what “is not written in the scroll of this Torah” has parallels in statements appended to extant Near Eastern treaty documents outside the Bible. Tigay says the expression “a plague that is not written in the Torah” is still used today in modern Hebrew to refer to a severe and unusual affliction ([1996] 272). 62 The population of Israel will once again become what it was before the ”a scant few“ ,מתי מעט multiplication in Egypt (Exod 1:7). The two phrases as the stars of the heavens for multitude,” appear“ ,ככוכבי השׁמים and earlier 1:9; 10:22; and 26:5 in reference to YHWH’s blessing in multiplying his people in times past. The process is reversed here. 63 Y. Muffs says the term שׂשׂ, translated here as “took delight,” carries a volitional sense: “was determined to … will be determined to” (Love and Joy [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992] 121–93; see also Tigay [1996] 272). The wording “to cause you to perish” implies a strong contrast to 26:5, where the same verbal root Aramean and made (אבד) ”to perish”). God took a single “perishing“ ,אבד) appears from him a people of vast numbers, so long as they were obedient. If they proved to be disobedient, he would diminish those numbers again by making his people “perish” which appears in the statement “you shall be plucked from ,נסח The verb .(להאביד) off the ground,” has cognates outside the Bible with the same sense of “deportation” (Tigay [1996] 397 n. 100; Held, JANESCU 11 [1979] 53–67). 64–65 On serving “other gods that you have not known … of wood and stone,” see the Comment on 4:28. In exile the people of Israel “shall find no ease and there shall be no rest.” On the image of “cried-out eyes” see the Comment on 28:32. The translation as “a dry throat” is taken from Tigay ([1996] 273, 397 n. 101), who ודאבון נפשׁ of cites Gruber (VT 37 [1987] 365–69; cf. Pss 69:4 [Eng. 3]; Jer 2:25). 66–67 Their “life will hang in doubt” as the refugees face horror “night and day,” finding each so unbearable that they long for the other—in the morning they long for evening; and in the evening they long for morning. which is translated here as “shall make you return (to , ו ה שׁ י בך The Hebrew 68 Egypt),” forms an inclusion with the “diseases of Egypt” in v 60. The reading they are is that of Meklenburg as cited by Tigay (אניות) ”to be returned “in mourning ,here as “in ease אניות Craigie suggests the possibility of translating .(273 [1996]) casually,” on the basis of Ugaritic evidence, following J. Gray, who offered a similar rendering in Judg 5:17 (Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCBC [London: Nelson, 1967] 287– 88). Such a reading offers “a further contrast between the blessing and the curse. God had brought his people out of Egypt, and together they had fought every inch of the way. Forgetting that great redemption, the people under the curse would be permitted to return casually to Egypt, the land of their bondage” (Craigie [1976] 353). The statement that they are to return to Egypt “by the way that I told you never again will you see it” is connected in some way with similar words in the so-called Law of the King in 17:14– 20 (see Comment on17:16). The people of Israel will attempt to sell themselves as slaves in Egypt; but “there will be no buyer.”

Explanation The undoing of the blessings in 28:58–68 is essentially a final reversal of Israel’s history. The curses reverse the blessings of God and constitute a final and awesome warning for future generations. In Egypt of times past, God afflicted the Egyptians with severe diseases in order to bring the people of Israel to their blessing. In the curse of God, the diseases of Egypt will be inflicted on Israel, not on their enemies; and for good measure, God will add disease and affliction that even the Egyptians never knew (vv 60–61). In the blessing of God, Israel’s ancestors went down into Egypt few in number and multiplied there according to God’s ancient promises. In the curse of God, they will become few in number once again, their numbers growing smaller and smaller until finally they are destroyed altogether (v 63). In the blessing of God, the people of Israel looked forward to the gift of the promised land, a gift that was partially fulfilled for the two and a half tribes who had already gained possession of their land. In the curse of God, the people would be forcibly removed from the promised land and scattered abroad among the nations, where they will find no rest (vv 64–65). The fullness of God’s blessing lay in serving and loving YHWH alone (6:4–5). The emptiness of living under God’s curse will be experienced in serving lifeless gods of wood and stone (28:64b). In the blessing of God, distant nations will fear Israel, who is confident in God. In the curse of God, the people of Israel will be constantly suspended in fear (vv 65–67). The blessing of God meant a long life in the promised land. But under the curse of God the people would not know from one moment to the next if they would even be allowed to remain alive (vv 66–67). In the blessing of God, the people of Israel were brought out of Egypt and freed from slavery. In the curse of God, they will return once again to Egypt, where they will offer themselves for sale as slaves; but the Egyptians will consider them of no value (v 68). Having rejected the honor of serving God, they will no longer be fit even to be slaves in Egypt. The great reversal of Israel’s history described in 28:58–68 is YHWH’s own doing. It is YHWH himself who “will take delight in you by causing you to perish, and by destroying you” (v 63). The same conclusion was reached in Lam 2:1–17 and 4:11–12, which function as a framework around a marvelous portrayal of the other side of the coin, namely that YHWH will not reject his people forever. Though this conclusion is not reached in Deut 28itself, it is the central message in Lamentations, the content of which is shaped in large measure by the covenant curses of Deuteronomy. Lamentations may be outlined as follows: A The desolation of Zion (Jerusalem) Lam 1 B YHWH has done what he purposed Lam 2 X YHWH will not reject his people forever Lam 3 B′ Zion’s children are ravaged by YHWH’s own wrath Lam 4 A′ The desolation of Zion (Jerusalem) Lam 5 Much of the content of desolation of Zion in the outer frame of this structure reflects in detail the horrible curses of Deut 28, including the section on cannibalism (vv 53–57; cf. Lam 4:10) and the great reversal of Israel’s history in Deut 28:58–68. A simple lesson emerges from careful reflection on the whole of this lengthy account of the covenant curses in Deut 28: to stand in awe before God and to turn from our sin. When King Josiah heard the words of this Torah read in Jerusalem, “he tore his clothes” and declared: “great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kgs 22:11–13 NRSV). In sharp contrast, King Jehoiakim took the scroll of the prophet Jeremiah and cut it up with a penknife and burned it piece by piece (Jer 36:23) rather than heed its message. We do well to emulate the example of Josiah rather than Jehoiakim; for destroying or ignoring the text of these covenant curses accomplishes nothing. The message stands true now, as then, that God has determined that indeed “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23), whether we choose to hear and obey, or harden our hearts and go our own way. At the same time, God’s mercy remains extended to all, for “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). e. Summation: “These Are the Words of the Covenant” (28:69 [Eng. 29:1]) Bibliography

Baltzer, K. Covenant Formulary. 1971 (Ger. original, 1960). 34–38. Cazelles, H. “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” In FS R. Martin-Achard. 1984. 2– 7, 33–46, esp. 40. Cho¬ewinski, A. “Zur theologischen Deutung des Boabbundes.” Bib 66 (1985) 96–111. Lohfink, N. “Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dtn. 28:69–32:47.” In Studien zum Deuteronomium I. 1990. 53–82. ———. The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Tr. J. J. Scullion. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Radjawane, A. N. “Israel zwischen Wüste und Land: Studie zur Theologie von Deuteronomium 1–3.” Diss., Mainz, 1972. 209–10.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis Summary: “These Are the Words of the Covenant” [4:4] 28:69(29:1) These are the words of the covenant / 10 1 that YHWH commanded Moses / to make / 15 2 with the children of Israel / 9 1_ In the land of Moab // in addition to the covenant / 14 2 _2 13 פ // that he made with them / at Horeb

Notes 69.a. SP and LXX add waw-conj., which is possible from a prosodic point of view. MT is followed here because it is easier to explain the addition of the conj. than its omission. Adding it strengthens the tie with what precedes, and the verse already appears in MT as the concluding verse of Deut 28rather than the first verse of Deut 29.

Form/Structure/Setting Scholars have long noted a series of titles in Deuteronomy, and these have been explained in various ways. Thus 4:45 is sometimes taken to be the introduction to the original scroll of Deuteronomy, prior to its insertion within the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic History (Joshua through 2 Kings). The conclusion to that scroll is presumed to be the covenant blessings and curses of Deut 28, and thus 4:45 and 28:69 are sometimes explained as an envelope around 4:44–11:32 // 27:1– 28:69, which constitutes the major part of the inner frame of Deuteronomy (chaps. 4– 11 and 27–30). It is better to see this verse as the structural center of Deut 26–30 (weekly readings 7 and 8 taken together) as outlined in detail above in the introduction to the seventh weekly portion (26:1–29:8). That outline may be summarized as follows: A Public worship at the festivals in the promised land Deut 26 B The covenant blessings and curses Deut 27–28 X Summation: “These are the words of the covenant” Deut 28:69 B′ The covenant is for future generations too Deut 29 A′ The terms of the covenant are doable Deut 30 Deut 28:69 thus functions both as the conclusion to the basic covenant renewal ceremony in 26:16–28:69 (as Craigie and others have argued) and the beginning of the covenant in the land of Moab, which Lohfink and others have identified with 28:69– 32:47. It is useful to place 28:69 within the context of the seventh weekly portion of Torah readings from Deuteronomy in terms of the specific prosodic subunits as determined in the prosodic analysis presented here. The content of the seventh reading may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A Preview: two liturgies for worship in the promised land 26:1–15 B Transition: mutual commitments in covenant renewal 26:16–19 C Covenant renewal at Shechem—a litany of curses 27:1–26 X Blessings and curses of the covenant in Moab 28:1–57 C′ Final curse—a complete reversal of Israel’s history 28:58–68 B′ Transition: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 A′ Review: the Magnalia Dei as the basis of the covenant 29:1–8 The ceremonies of public worship at the central sanctuary in ancient Israel in the first half of the outermost frame in this structure include a liturgy for the annual presentation of firstfruits at the central sanctuary (26:1–11) and a liturgy for the triennial tithe (26:12–15), which was stored in local towns. This preview of future worship in the promised land is set over against a brief review of the “mighty acts of God” (Magnalia Dei) in times past, which acts constitute the basis of the covenant relationship between YHWH and his people Israel (29:1–8). The second frame is made up of two brief transitional passages: mutual commitments made between the people and YHWH (26:16–19) and the summary statement, “These are the words of the covenant” (28:69). The inner frame opens with the account of the Shechem ceremony of covenant renewal that dramatizes Israel’s covenant responsibilities (27:1–10) and the litany of ten covenant curses pronounced by the twelve tribes from Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (27:11–26). It concludes with the final curse, which is the complete reversal of Israel’s history (28:58–68). In the center we find the long section on the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience to the covenant stipulations (28:1–57). The summary command in 28:69 and the similar such summary command in 29:8 function as a frame around a brief summary of YHWH’s Holy War (see Excursus:“Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel”) from the perspective of Moses, which may be outlined as follows: A Summary: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 B The exodus from Egypt remembered 29:1–3 X God’s provision for forty years in the wilderness 29:4–5 B′ The conquest of the two Amorite kings in Transjordan 29:6–7 A′ Summary: “You shall keep the words of this covenant” 29:8 In short, 28:69 is a pivotal text, which ties together a number of different structures within Deuteronomy. From a prosodic perspective, it is primarily a part of what follows in 29:1–8, as shown in the next section of this commentary. From antiquity there has been difference of opinion in regard to how this verse functions within its larger context. In the MT the verse concludes chap. 28 and thus belongs with the blessings and curses. In the LXX tradition and other translations, including English Bibles, the verse is considered to be the first verse of chap. 29. The reason for this ambiguity is simply that the verse belongs to both sections. Besides its function as a bridge connectingDeut 28 and 29, this verse is also connected with more distant texts—in particular, with Deut 1:1, which begins: “These are the words that Moses spoke.” The text goes on to spell out that Moses spoke what YHWH commanded him to say (1:3). Moreover, he began to expound what these words meant in the form of “this Torah” (1:5). The text echoes Moses’ words in 5:2: “YHWH our God has cut with us a covenant in Horeb.” Here in 28:69 we find: “These are the words of the covenant that YHWH commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel.” Deut 28:69 also forms an inclusion with 28:58 and its reference to “all the words of this Torah written in this scroll.” Its place within that context may be outlined in another menorah pattern: A If you are not careful to do all the words of this Torah 28:58 B You will experience the plagues of Egypt 28:59–61 C Your numbers will be decimated 28:62 X YHWH will take delight in destroying you 28:63 C′ YHWH will scatter you among the nations 28:64–65 B′ YHWH will make you return to Egypt 28:66–68 A′ These are the words of the covenant 28:69 It appears that 28:69 is an important part of the editorial structuring of Deuteronomy as a whole. Lohfink argues that the verse is to be taken as the first verse of a new unit and traces elements of the treaty pattern in the section that follows (BZ 6 [1962] 32–56). This conclusion stands, but so does the close structural connection to what precedes it as well.

Comment 69 The reference to “the covenant that he made with them at Horeb” as well as the covenant “in the land of Moab” makes clear that there is direct continuity between these two covenant ceremonies. In Moab “the covenant that he made with them at Horeb” was renewed—as it was again later at Shechem. At the same time, both covenants are new in the sense that each reflects the continuing living relationship established between YHWH and his people. It should be noted that this verse is closely connected covenant,” also“ ,ברית with 29:9, as is shown in the following section, where the word appears. That word appears five times in Deut 29 (vv 9, 12, 14, 21, 25), while it is used only once in all the laws in the central core (in 17:2). The verse functions as an introduction to what follows; but at the same time it is dependent on the preceding chapters, as an essential connecting link within the macrostructure of Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant in Exodus. The law of Moses in Moab is covenant law, and is thereby placed on the same footing as the covenant law given at Sinai. Explanation The prophet Jeremiah later spoke of “a new covenant” that YHWH “will make with the house of Israel after those days” (Jer 31:31–34). Later still, Jesus at the Last Supper declared: “This cup … is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), which will be poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28). Like the old covenant at Sinai, this new one is sealed with a fellowship meal and blood sacrifice. Like Moses on Mount Sinai, Jesus, on another mountain, gave a new covenant law (Matt 5–7). The teaching of Jesus, his example, and his life constitute the commandments of the new covenant (John 15:12; 13:14–15, 34). For Christians, the promise of the Mosaic covenant at Horeb and Moab (and Shechem) continues. It is part of God’s unfolding redemptive plan; and, as such, the covenant remains essentially one. As Lohfink once put it in the title of a provocative study, “the covenant was never revoked” (The Covenant Never Revoked).

E. Remembering the Past: The Magnalia Dei (29:1–8 [Eng. 2–9]) Bibliography

Baltzer, K. Covenant Formulary. 1971 (Ger. original, 1960). 34–35. Begg, C. T. “ ‘Bread, Wine and Strong Drink’ in Deut 29:5a.” Bijdragen 41 (1980) 266–75.Blenkinsopp, J. “Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy?” CBQ 28 (1966) 207–19, esp. 209. Brichto, H. C. Problem of “Curse”. 1963. 28–31. Briggs, C. A. “A Study of the Use ,in the Old Testament.” In FS A. Kohut. 1897. 94–105, esp. 95. Cazelles לֵ בָ ב and לֵ ב of H. “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” In FS R. Martin- Achard. 1984. 2–7, 33–46, esp. 40. Cho¬ewinski, A. “Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes.” Bib 66 (1985) 96–111. Davies, G. I. “The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch.” VT 33 (1983) 1–13, esp. 12. Greenberg, M. “Mankind, Israel and the Nations in the Hebraic Heritage.” In No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind. Ed. J. R. Nelson. Leiden: Brill, 1971. 15–40, esp. 28. Greenfield, J. C.“An Ancient Treaty Ritual and Its Targumic Echo.” In Salvación en la Palabra … Homenaje al Profesor Alejandro Diez Macho. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986. 391–97. Halbe, J. “Gibeon und Israel.” VT 25 (1975) 613–41. Halpern, B. “Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era.” CBQ 37 (1975) 303–16.Kearney, P. J. “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History.” CBQ 35 (1973) 1–19. Koch, D.-A. Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. 170–71. Kutsch, E. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. 140– 41. Lohfink, N. “Der Bundesschluß im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28, 69– 32, 47.” In Studium zum Deuteronomium I. 1990. 53–82.Mayes, A. D. H. “Deuteronomy 29, Joshua 9 and the Place of the Gibeonites in Israel.” In Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink. 1985. 321–25.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis YHWH’s Mighty Acts in Egypt [8]

1(2) And Moses summoned / all Israel / 14 2 and he said to them // “You yourselves have seen / 14 2 all that YHWH did before your eyes / 18 1 In the land of Egypt / to Pharaoh and to all his servants / 19 2 and to all his land // 7 1_

Israel’s Lack of Understanding [7:7]

2(3) The great / feats / that your eyes / have seen // 21 4 these / great / signs and the marvels // 21 3_ 3(4) Indeed YHWH has not given / you a mind / to understand / 18 3 nor eyes to see / nor ears to hear // to / THIS DAY // 22 4_

YHWH’s Provisions for Forty Years in the Wilderness [7:7]

4(5) “ ‘I led you / forty years / in the wilderness // 21 3 Your garments did not wear out / from upon you / 18 2 and your sandal(s) did not wear out / from upon your feet // 19 2_ 5(6) Bread \ you did not eat / 7 1 and wine or other intoxicant / you did not drink // 14 2 so \ you may know / that / I am YHWH / your God’ // 22 4_

The Conquest and Settlement of Transjordan [7:7]

6(7) “And you came / to this place // 15 2 and Sihon king of Heshbon came out / 14 1 And Og king of Bashan | to meet us / for battle / 23 3 and we struck them // 4 1_ 7(8) And we took / their land / and we gave it as an inheritance / 17 3 to the Reubenites / and to the Gadites // 14 2 and to the half / tribe of Manasseh // 13 2_

Summary Command to Keep the Terms of the Covenant [8]

8(9) “And you shall keep / the words / of this covenant / 17 3 and you shall do / them // 9 2 _3 17 פ // so that you will be successful / with / all that you do

Notes 2.a. LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pl. 2.b. Some Heb. MSS, one LXX MS, and OL add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 3.a. Reading waw emphaticum. 4.a. LXX, Syr., and Vg. read 3 masc. sg.

Both terms .שׂלמתיכם for MT שׂמל(ו)תיכם b-b. Some Heb. MSS and SP read.4 are used for an outer garment.

,ונעליכם לא בלו מעל רגליכם c-c. SP, LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. read.4 “and your [pl.] sandals did not wear out from upon your [pl.] feet.” MT, which reads 2 sg. forms, is retained as lectio difficilior. 5.a. Reading yĕtîb as conj.

5.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj. 5.c-c. LXX reads ὅτι οὗτός (ἐστιν) κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, “that this is the Lord your God.” 6.a. Reading the sequence of ˓azlā followed by dargā as disj. Note in particular ”.king“ ,מלך the metheg under the 6.b. Some of the more important LXX witnesses read 2 pl. 7.a. LXX reads 1 sg.

,.as an inheritance,” is omitted in one Heb. MS; SP, Syr“ ,לנחלה b. The term.7 and Tg. Ps.-J. omit the waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

all”). The addition of this one word to the“ ,כל =) a. With LXX adding πάντας.8 Hebrew text brings the total of words in 27:1–29:8 to 1,428 (= 7 × 12 × 17). See discussion at the end of Form/Structure/Setting.

Form/Structure/Setting The seventh of the eleven weekly portions of the Torah readings from Deuteronomy (26:1–29:8) comprises eight verses of chap. 29 that function as a fitting conclusion to the section as a whole. The content of these verses may be described with the phrase G. Ernest Wright used so often, the Magnalia Dei (“mighty acts of God”), which may be outlined as follows: A Preview: two liturgies for worship in the promised land 26:1–15 B Transition: mutual commitments in covenant renewal 26:16–19 X Covenant renewal in Moab and Shechem: blessings and curses 27:1–28:68 B′ Transition: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 A′ Review: the basis of the covenant in the mighty acts of God 29:1–8 The section begins with the words, “when you come into the land that YHWH your God is giving you” (26:1); and it ends with the injunction, “you shall keep the words of this covenant … so that you will be successful with all that you do” (29:8). The outer frame in this structure moves from a pair of litanies that anticipate future worship in the promised land (26:1–15) to a brief review of God’s redemptive activity in Israel’s behalf, from the exodus from Egypt to the conquest and settlement of Transjordan (29:1–8). The inner frame is made up of two brief transitional passages (26:16– 19 and 28:69), which function as a frame around the central concern of the whole: the matter of covenant renewal in the days of Moses in Moab, and in the promised land at Shechem in time to come. Deut 26:1–11 includes a liturgical confession that every male Israelite used each year as he presented the firstfruits of his labors to YHWH at the central sanctuary in behalf of his household. This was followed by another brief confession to be used every three years when the special triennial tithe was presented symbolically in a basket at the central sanctuary (26:12–15), though the tithe itself was stored for use in local towns throughout the land. Then the focus shifts to the matter of the covenant renewal itself (27:1–29:8), which was celebrated in a special way in the sabbatical year, beginning with the observance of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread at Shechem “in the day when you cross over the Jordan into the land that YHWH your God is giving you” (27:2), in which “all the words of this Torah” were to be written on large plastered stones for the people to see and read. The season of covenant renewal “every seventh year, at the set time, the year of release, at the Festival of Booths” (31:10), climaxed with a memorable recitation of Deuteronomy to musical accompaniment. The boundaries of the five prosodic subunits in 29:1–8 are marked with the Numeruswechsel (changing between second singular and plural forms) in each of the first five verses and the pĕtûḥāʾ marker after v 8. Moreover, the fourth unit (vv 6–7) displays an extension of the Numeruswechsel with a change from second-person plural to first-person plural forms in vv 6 and 7, which separates v 8 from what precedes. The Numeruswechsel in the middle of the third unit (vv 4 and 5) marks the center of 28:69–29:8, taken as a whole. The change in speaker in vv 4–5, as Moses here quotes YHWH directly, should also be noted. The five-part concentric structure of 28:69–29:8 may be outlined as follows: A Summary: “These are the words of the covenant” 28:69 B Moses speaks: the exodus from Egypt remembered 29:1–3 X YHWH speaks: “I led you forty years in the wilderness” 29:4–5 B′ Moses speaks: conquest of the Amorite kings in Transjordan 29:6–7 A′ Summary: “You shall keep the words of this covenant” 29:8 The text of 29:1–8 can be analyzed further into three prosodic subunits that highlight the specific message in matters of detail: A You have seen what YHWH did before your eyes 29:1a B In the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants 29:1b X Great feats that your eyes have seen 29:2a B′ These great signs and marvels 29:2b A′ YHWH has not given eyes to see nor ears to hear 29:3

”,eyes“ ,עינים From a structural point of view, the key words in vv 1–3 are the noun to see,” each of which appears three times in three verses. The“ ,ראה and the verb outer frame presents a contrast: you have seen what YHWH has done before your eyes (v 1a); but, even so, YHWH has not given you “eyes to see” in the sense of understanding (v 3). In the land of Egypt, YHWH has done great signs and marvels “that your eyes have seen” (vv 1b–2). At this point, the narrative shifts to first person, with Moses quoting the words of YHWH himself: A I have led you forty years in the wilderness 29:4a B Your garment and sandals did not wear out from upon you 29:4b B′ It was not bread you ate nor wine and liquor that you drank 29:5a A′ So you may know that I am YHWH your God 29:5b The point is that it was not natural food that God provided in the wilderness. The people survived on manna, quail, and water provided directly by God, for “not by bread alone do humans live” (8:3). The outer frame in this structure is in the first person singular (vv 4a and 5b), and the inner frame (vv 4band 5a) is in the second person. The narrative continues with Moses describing the conquest and settlement of the two Amorite kingdoms in Transjordan: A And you came to this place 29:6a B And Sihon and Og came to meet us for battle and we struck them 29:6b B′ And we gave their land to Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (east) 29:7 A′ You shall keep the words of this covenant to be successful 29:8 The first phase of YHWH’s Holy War within the promised land was the defeat of the two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, and the settlement of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh in their place. The outer frame in this structure is in the second person (vv 6a and 8), whereas the inner frame (vv 6b and 7) is in the first person plural. The recital of the Magnalia Dei in 29:1–8 functions in two different ways. Within the context of the seventh of the eleven weekly readings of the Torah in the lectionary cycle (26:1–29:8), it is a fitting conclusion to YHWH’s Holy War as celebrated event in the life of ancient Israel. By “Holy War” I mean the events of the exodus-eisodus, the mighty acts of God in delivering Israel from bondage in Egypt under Moses and the possession of the promised land that took place in two phases: Transjordan under Moses, and Cisjordan under Joshua. The two great covenant renewal ceremonies—on the plains of Moab with Moses and on Mount Ebal with Joshua—are the focus of interest in this larger structural entity. Deut 29:1–8 also introduces what follows in 29:9–32:52 (the eighth and ninth of the weekly readings in the lectionary cycle), where the focus shifts to the matter of covenant renewal in future generations, extending even beyond the actual breaking of the covenant and the experience of the covenant curses as spelled out in Deut 28. The relation between 29:1–8 and what follows may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A Brief recitation of the mighty acts of God in times past 29:1–8 B An appeal for covenant faithfulness in generations to come 29:9–28 C Restoration remains possible / Torah and song as a witness 30:1–31:30 X Recital of YHWH’s saving deeds in days of old 32:1–14 C′ Israel’s future rebellion and restoration 32:15–45 B′ Summary command to observe all the words of the Torah 32:46–47 A′ God instructs Moses to ascend Mount Nebo to “see” the land 32:48–52 The framework in this structure (A, X, A′) moves from the recital of YHWH’s mighty acts in the days of Moses (29:1–8 and 32:1–14), to the final scene in the life of Moses (32:48–52) in which YHWH allows him to see the whole of the promised land—the culmination of that epic journey. The outermost of the frames (B, B′) within this framework focuses on the fact that the covenant made in the days of Moses is binding for all time; even after the people experience the covenant curses for violating its terms (29:9–28), the command to observe all the words of the Torah still stands (32:46–47). The innermost frame (C, C′) focuses on the restoration of Israel when they heed the words of this Torah and the Song of Moses, which was preserved in their midst as a witness (30:1–31:30 and 32:15–45). The data assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers, with three minor textual corrections (27:26; 28:14; 29:8), may be summarized as follows: Words before ʾatnā after ʾatnā : ḥ ḥ

28:69– (= 3 × 26 + 25 = 51 29:2 17) 29:1–5 34 (= 2 × 17) + 37 = 71

(= 3 × 29:4–7 23 + 28 = 51 17) (= 2 (= 29:4–8 30 + 34 × = 64 “Israel”

17 ) ) 27:1– (= 9 × 81 + 72 = 153 10 17) 27:11– 113 + 61 = 174 26 28:1– 119 (= 7 × 17) + 79 = 198 14 28:15– (= 4 × 7 × 31 476 + = 794 69 17) 8 29:1–8 53 + 56 = 109

(= 7 × 27:1– 58 1,42 841 + = 12 × 29:8 7 8 17)

Once again the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 are woven into the fabric of the text in different ways. The total number of words in vv 4–8, which is essentially a review of Israel’s past (i.e., the forty years in the wilderness and the conquest and settlement of ,כבוד =) Transjordan), is 64—the numerical value of the word “Israel.” There are 23 “glory”) before ʾatnāḥ in these same five verses. The two divine-name numbers 17 and 26 are used to tie 29:1–2 together with 28:69. The most intriguing figure, however, is the total number of words in 27:1–29:8 (on the covenant renewal ceremony in Moab and Shechem): 1,428 (7 × 12 × 17). The number 7 signifies “worship” (the Sabbath is the seventh day), the number 12 stands for Israel (12 tribes), and the number 17 is glory.” Once again, the scribes“ ,כבד associated with both the divine name YHWH and of ancient Israel have labored to the glory of YHWH in the numerical composition of the biblical text.

Comment

indicates that he (ויקרא אל) ”The opening statement that Moses “summoned 2–1 is continuing the proclamation of the covenant ceremony that includes the blessings and curses of 28:1–68. Moses reminds the people what God did in their behalf “in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his servants.” “The great feats … these signs and marvels” refer to the ten plagues that led to the crossing of the sea in the exodus from Egypt. 3 In spite of the mighty acts of God in delivering the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt, they still were not able to grasp what this meant. At first glance their obtuseness appears to be the responsibility of God himself, for the text says: “YHWH has not given mind,” is“ ,לב you a mind to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” The Hebrew literally “heart” (see Comment on 6:5). As Tigay has observed, “Moses’ statement that God had not given Israel the capacity to understand its experiences has puzzled commentators. If it means that the perception necessary to understand the religious meaning of historical experiences … comes only from God, how could God have held the rebellious Exodus generation responsible for its faithlessness?… However, a similar thought is expressed in 30:6, where Moses promises that after Israel repents in exile, God will open up the people’s hearts and enable them to love Him. This seems to imply that God does give the heart the capacity for faith, but that He does so for those who seek it.… as the Talmud says, ‘When a person seeks to purify himself, he receives help in doing so’ ” ([1996] 275–76, citing b. Shab. 104a and parallels). 4–5 Moses here quotes God, who reminds the people of his care for them for “forty years in the wilderness.” On their supernatural food and the miraculous preservation of ויין bread,” and“ ,לחם their clothing, see Comment on 8:1–6. The emphatic position of and wine or other intoxicant,” here indicates that it was supernatural food and“ ,ושׁכר know,” is used here“ ,תדעו water that sustained them up to this point in time. The word in the sense of legal recognition, as found also in ancient treaty texts, where it refers to the overlord’s recognition of his vassal and vice versa. 6–7 The phrase “this place” refers to the land of the two Amorite kings, “Sihon king of Heshbon” and “Og king of Bashan.” Their defeat by Israel under Moses’ leadership marks the end of the first phase of YHWH’s Holy War in Transjordan, which will continue under Joshua in Cisjordan. It is possible that we have here an extension of the more familiar Numeruswechsel, which normally involves the change between singular and plural forms. Here we move from second plural (vv 5–6) to first plural forms (vv 6– 7), perhaps to mark the boundaries of subunits in the larger literary structure (cf. also the “we” passages in 1:19; 2:1; 3:1; 29:14–15, 18, 28; 30:12–13). 8 The summary command “you shall keep the words of this covenant” forms an inclusion with “the words of the covenant” in 28:69.

Explanation An important lesson to be learned from 29:1–3 concerns spiritual blindness. In spite of great “signs and marvels” witnessed by the people of Israel, in which their clothing did not wear out and they ate extraordinary food supplied by God himself, the people were without understanding. They lived in full view of God’s marvelous handiwork, and yet they did not have “a mind to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear” (v 3). Jesus spoke of this phenomenon by quoting the words of the prophet Isaiah in Matt 13:13–15 to the effect that God himself must in some way be responsible for spiritual blindness. The text here, however, suggests that the reason is simply that God has not yet given them eyes to see and ears to hear. John Calvin once said, “Men are ever blind in the brightness of light, until they have been enlightened by God” (citation from G. E. Wright, IB 2:503). As Paul put it in another quotation from Isaiah, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom 10:21). They cannot see because their eyes are blinded through disobedience to what God has already revealed to them (cf. Rom 11:1–10).

Reading 8: Appeal for Covenant Loyalty (29:9–30:20 [Eng. 29:10–30:20]) The eighth of the eleven weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of Torah readings taking one’s stand,” which is“ ,נצבים from Deuteronomy (29:9–30:20) is known as descriptive of its content, as individuals are invited to take their stand as obedient members of the covenant community. The covenant is intended not only for those who are “here with us standing today before YHWH our God”; it is also with those who are “not here with us today” (29:14)—that is, for all future generations of God’s people. The entire weekly portion in 29:9–30:20 may be outlined in a menorah pattern: A The covenant is binding on future generations too 29:9–14 B Warning to those with reservations about keeping the covenant 29:15–20 C The exile from the land of Israel foretold 29:21–27 X Secret and revealed things: Do all the words of this Torah! 29:28 C′ The possibility of restoration after exile 30:1–10 B′ God’s commandments are doable 30:11–14 A′ The choice before you is between life and death—choose life 30:15–20 The framework (A, X, A′) in this structure moves from a statement of the situation that the covenant is binding on future generations (29:9–14) to urging each individual to choose life rather than death (30:11–20)—by deciding to “do all the words of this Torah” (29:28). The first frame (B, B′) moves from a warning to those with reservations about keeping the covenant (29:15–20) to an assurance that God’s commandments are indeed doable (30:11–14). The innermost frame moves from a prediction of exile from the land of Israel (29:21–27) to a presentation of the possibility of restoration after exile (30:1–10). Each of the two chapters (Deut 29 and 30) may be outlined in a five-part concentric structure: A Summary command to keep the terms of the covenant 29:1–8 B The covenant is binding on future generations too 29:9–14 X Warning to those with reservations on keeping the covenant 29:15–20 B′ Exile from the land is foretold for breaking the covenant 29:21–27 A′ Secret and revealed things: Do all the words of this Torah! 29:28 In this reading, the message of Deut 29 presents the warning of what will happen to those who do not keep the covenant in times to come: “YHWH uprooted them from their soil in anger and in fury and in great rage; and he cast them into another land” (29:27). A The possibility of returning to YHWH is there 30:1–5 B When you return, YHWH will return the covenant blessings 30:6–10 X God’s commandments are doable 30:11–14 B I have set before you the choice between life and death 30:15–18 A′ So choose life by obeying YHWH’s commandments 30:19–20 The message is clear: even in exile, the possibility of returning to YHWH is there (vv 1–5), so make the choice to live in obedience to YHWH’s commandments (vv 19– 20). When the people choose to return to YHWH, he will once again restore the covenant blessings (vv 6–10). The choice between life and death is before God’s people (vv 15–18), for his commandments are doable (vv 11–14).

A. The Covenant Is Binding on Future Generations Too (29:9–14 [Eng. 10–15]) Bibliography

Begg, C. T. “The Reading šbṭy(km) in Deut 29, 9 and 2 Sam 7, 7.” ETL 58 (1982) 87– 105. Blenkinsopp, J. Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel. SOTSMS 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972. Brenner, A. “Concerning maṭṭeh and šēbeṭ and Their Semantic Classification.” Leš 44 (1980) 100–108 (Heb.). Brichto, H. C. Problem of “Curse.”1963. 28–31. Cazelles, H. “La rupture de la berît selon les Prophètes.” In FS Y. Yadin. 1982. 133–44, esp. 136. ———. “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” In FS R. Martin-Achard. 1984. 40.Falk, Z. W. “Ruler and Judge.” Leš 30 (1965–66) 243–47 (Heb.). Friedrich, J. “Der hethitische Soldateneid.” ZA 35 (1924) 161–91, esp. 170–72. Gevirtz, S. “On Hebrew šēbeṭ = –303 .1981 . שׁבע Judge.’ ” In FS C. H. Gordon. 1980. 61–66. Giesen, G. Die Wurzel‘ 4. Guillén Torralba, J. “La Formula kol ˒iš yiśra˒êl.”EstBib 34 (1975) 5–21. Hasel, G. F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15.” JSOT 19 (1981) 61–78. Henninger, J. “Was bedeutet die rituelle Teilung eines Tieres in zwei Hälften?” In Arabica Sacra: Aufsätze zur Religionsgeschichte Arabiens und seiner Randgebiete. OBO 40. Freiburg: Universitäts Verlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. 275–85. Laubscher, F. D. T. “Notes on the Literary Structure of 1QS 2:11–18 and Its Biblical Parallel in Deut. 29.”JNSL 8 (1980) 49– 55. Levin, C. Der Sturz der Königin Atalja: Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Christ. SBS 105. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982. 59– 77. Loewenstamm, S. E. Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. 270– 72. Milgrom, J. “Excursus 34: The ‘Ger.’ ” In Numbers. 1990. 398–402. Reid, P. V. “šbṭy in 2 Samuel 7:7.” CBQ 37 (1975) 17–20. Reviv, H. “The Pattern of the Pan-Tribal Assembly in the Old Testament.” JNSL 8 (1980) 85–94. Robert, P. de. “Juges ou tribus en 2 Samuel vii 7.” VT 21 (1971) 116–18. Rösel, H. “Die ‘Richter Israels’: Rückblick und neuer Ansatz.” BZ 25 (1981) 180–203. Ruprecht, E. “Exodus 24, 9–11 als Beispiel lebendiger Erzähltradition aus der Zeit des babylonischen Exils.” In FS C. Westermann. 1980. 138–73, esp. 143 (“elders”). Sheriffs, D. C. T. “The Phrases ins IGI DN andlipeney Yhwh in Treaty and Covenant Contexts.” JNSL 7 (1979) 55–68. Thiel, W. “Altorientalische und israelitisch- jüdische Religion.” JLH 28 (1984) 166–91, esp. 168, 178. Trever, J. C. “Gall” and “Wormwood”. IDB. 2:350 and 4:878–79. Vos, C. J. “Woman in Old Testament Worship.” Diss., Amsterdam, 1968.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis The Covenant Is Binding on Future Generations Too [9:7] [(4:5):(5:4)] [7:9] 9(10) You are stationed TODAY / all of you / 13 2 before the presence of / YHWH your God // 12 2 Your heads your judges / your elders / and your officials / 22 3 every / man of Israel // 9 2_ 10(11) Your little ones your wives / and your resident alien / 12 2 who / are in the midst of your camp // 9 2 from your woodchopper / to / your water hauler // 21 3_ 11(12) That you may enter / into the covenant / of YHWH your God / 18 3 and into his oath of fealty // 9 1_ That / YHWH your God / 11 2 is cutting with you / TODAY // 11 2 12(13) in order that he may establish you TODAY / 15 1_ For him as a people / with him being for you / as a God / 19 3 just as / he promised you // 7 2_ And just as he swore / 6 1 to your fathers / to Abraham and to Isaac / and to Jacob // 24 3_ 13(14) And it is not with you / you alone // 10 2 I / cut / this covenant / and this / oath // 29 5_ 14(15) But with the one who is / here / with us / 15 3 standing TODAY / before / YHWH our God // 20 3 and with the one who is not / here / with us TODAY // 20 3_

Notes

”,your judges“ ,שׁפטיכם your tribes,” to read“ ,שׁבטיכם a-a. Emending MT.9 with LXX, which reads οἱ ἀρχίφυλοι ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ γερουσία ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ κριταὶ ὑμῶν καὶ οἱ γραμματοεισαγωγεῖς ὑμῶν, “your heads and your elders and your judges and your your heads and your elders“ ,(ראשׁיכם וזקניכם ושׁפטיכם ושׁטריכם =) ”officials and your judges and your officials” in the list are reversed from that of MT. These four terms for leaders in ancient Israelite society appear together in Josh 23:2 and 24:1, but in different order from either LXX or MT as emended here, namely: elders, heads, ”.heads of your tribes“ ,ראשׁי שׁבטיכם judges, and officials. Syr. and Tg. Ps.-J. read 10.a. DSS, SP, LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

your [sg.] camp,” with some Heb. MSS, SP, and Syr.; LXX“ ,מחנך b. Reading.10 . מחניכם Tg. Ps.-J. reads ;( מחנכם =) ”reads τῆς παρεμβολῆς ὑμων, “your [pl.] camp 10.c. One Heb. MS, SP, some major LXX witnesses, Syr., and Vg. add waw-conj. 11.a-a. Syr. reads 2 pl. in place of 2 sg. in MT; some SP MSS and Tg. to cause“ ,להעבירכם to cause you [sg.] to cross”; Tg. Ps.-J. reads“ ,להעבירך read you [pl.] to cross.” 12.a. The anomalous pāsēq in BHS suggests that the disj. break belongs here instead of with the gèreš on the following word. The pāsēq is missing in the Letteris edition of the Hebrew text. 14.a. LXX reads 2 pl. 14.b. DSS, some LXX witnesses, and OL read 2 pl.

Form/Structure/Setting It is possible to read Deut 29 within a more elaborate concentric structure with 29:9–14 in the center: A Introduction: These are the words of the covenant 28:69 B The exodus from the land of Egypt recalled 29:1–2 C Moses reminds them of God’s provision in times past 29:3–8 X The covenant is binding on future generations too 29:9–14 C′ Moses warns those with reservations about the covenant 29:15–20 B′ The exile from the land of Israel foretold 29:21–27 A′ Conclusion: Observe the words of the Torah 29:28 In this reading the central message remains much the same as that of Deut 27–28, with Moses reminding the people of past blessings and warning them of future curses for breaking the covenant with YHWH (vv 3–20). The focus of attention in the center of this structure, however, is that the covenant applies to future generations as well (29:9– as a key (ארץ מצרים) ”The outer frame picks up the image of “the land of Egypt .(14 concept in vv 1 and24, in both instances calling attention to God’s redemptive power in times past. The boundaries of the three prosodic units here are marked with the Numeruswechsel in vv 10 and 13. The section as a whole begins with reference to all of the people who are standing before YHWH in the covenant ceremony there on the plains of Moab (v 9) and closes with a statement that this covenant also applies to “those who are not here with us today” (v 14). This inclusion becomes the outer frame in a concentric structural design that Tigay (following Mayes) has outlined as follows ([1996] 277): A You [present generation] stand today before YHWH your God 29:9–10 B to enter the covenant … with its sanctions 29:11 X that YHWH may establish you as his people and be your God 29:12 B′ I am concluding this covenant … with its sanctions 29:13 A′ those standing here today and [future generations] 29:14 This structure has the covenant formula as its focal point in v 12 and focuses attention on repetition of the words “covenant” and “oath” in vv 11 and 13. Another way of looking at the concentric structural design is to add another structural frame to form a menorah pattern: A Present: you are all standing here today before YHWH 29:9–10 B Stipulations: “the covenant of YHWH … and his oath” 29:11a C Present: YHWH is making this covenant with you today 29:11b X Formula: to establish you as his people and he as your God 29:12a C′ Past: the covenant was promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 29:12b B′ Stipulations: “this covenant and this oath” 29:13 A′ Future: this covenant is also with those not here today 29:14 The inner frame in this structure (vv 11, 12b) focuses on the fact that this covenant, which the people are about to make with YHWH, is the same covenant that was promised to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Genesis. The center of this structure presents the unique relationship that this covenant establishes between God and Israel: they are to become his people and he will henceforth be their God. The evidence gathered by Labuschagne on the numerical composition of 29:9– 20 may be summarized as follows: after ʾatnā Words: before ʾatnāḥ ḥ

(= 2 × 29:9–13 34 + 32 = 66 17) (= 26 + (= 3 × 29:9–16 58 + 51 = 109 32) 17) 29:14 11 + 6 = 17

29:15–16 13 + 13 = 26

(= 2 × 29:15–18 52 + 25 = 77 26) (= 3 × 29:15–20 78 + 38 = 116 26) 29:17 23 + 7 = 30

(= 3 × 29:17–18 39 + 12 = 51 17) 29:19 20 + 6 = 26

29:19–20 26 + 13 = 39

29:9–14 45 + 38 = 83 29:9– (= 21 × (= 18 × (39 × 357 + 306 = 663 30:20 17) 17) 17)